# OHVs allowed in parks...could your riding place be next?



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

This is happening in Sooke BC. Harbourview has some great downhill, all mountain and XC 
trails. It's a large area and if you've ever looked at coming out this way for a vacation, please 
read below and help. If you don't live in Canada and you want to help, when you write your 
letters, let them know that you like to travel to ride bike and if the only place to ride bikes in 
Sooke has OHV users (quads, mx, 4X4) then you will no/would not come here for a vacation. ...

So there is a big push to get the CRD to change their bylaws and allow OHV's at Harbourview (and Broomhill to a lesser extent). This movement has the support of the Sooke mayor and the mayor of Metchosin. After a few years of 
fighting and going through the process, we were weeks away from getting this designated a bike park (like the dump 
but with hiking too). Now the OHV group with support from some CRD staff have tabled it and are looking to "review" 
the park, which could mean a few more years of going through the "process".

Then end result will be quads and MX's on mtb trails. Even now with the gate closed and posted "no motorized vehicles" 
OHVs have been ripping up quite a bit of our trails. If the gates are open, you can say goodbye to these trails. We need 
the support of anyone, and if you guys could find the time to write a letter, it would help. Of importance is mentioning 
that you would no longer want to come to our city to ride bike and SPEND MONEY in Sooke if there's no place to ride without 
OHVs.

This is the groups FB page:http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=236921441704

Some of the destruction they cause:




















http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=918wfWEyd1Y&feature=related

If you need talking points:

FOR MTBing:
*Health benefits of MTBing
*Low impact/footprint
-http://www.imba.com/resources/science/trail_shock.html
-http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_wimpey_2007.html
*History of trail maintenance volunteering
*Involving youngsters will help reduce drug use
-http://www.ehow.com/way_5325092_drug-prevention-young-children.html

AGAINST OHV's:
*Habitat destruction
-http://www.glorietamesa.org/ohv-orv-facts-sheet.php
-http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ohvdamageaccount/index.html (it's so bad in Minnesota they have a state fund to pay land owners for damage).
-http://www.glorietamesa.org/in-the-news.php
*Noise (many OHV's don't have good muffler systems)
*Dangerous to hikers and bikers (high speeds, vehicle traffic where people are hiking)
*Displace wildlife
*If they open the HV road, how much will it cost to maintain it with all the extra
traffic?

Contact information (BE POLITE, CURSING AND ANGER WILL NOT HELP):
(CRD staff)http://www.crd.bc.ca/about/board/directors/index.htm
(Sooke council and mayor) http://www.sooke.ca/EN/main/contacts/feedback.php

The OHV people argue that they have no place to ride...not true, they have WAY more places 
to OHV than we do to ride a bike or hike.

Examples:
Stamp Mountain
Boneyard main
Butler main
Neild road motorbike club property
Jordan River trials trails
Olifant lk
Burnt bridge
Bamberton
Emerald forest (west Shawnigan)
Western Speedway dirt bike track 
...these are just the ones I know about, I don't OHV.

If the CRD allows OHVs in parks, this could have implications throughout the province. 
This would set a precedent for other local, federal and provincial land managers.

Please help.


----------



## Steamer19 (Nov 4, 2006)

It never ceases to amaze me, the mentality of the off-roaders. I work with a guy who does this activity and he actually has the nerve to tell me that mountain biking is worse for the environment than his off-roading activities. He claims because of the wide, low pressure tires they have that their is very little environmental damage. Doesn't seem to be even worthwhile to waste a breath arguing.


----------



## Huck Pitueee (Apr 25, 2009)

Just build your own hidden trails if getting fd over is getting old.


----------



## cruso414 (Aug 19, 2004)

I would rather share trails with them than horses.


----------



## CdaleTony (Jun 21, 2005)

At some point if there is enough OHV users shouldn't they have some opportunity to recreation-alize?


----------



## Huck Pitueee (Apr 25, 2009)

Yup. Some cows got on one of our trails and postholed it .Plus we got sprayed with poop.


----------



## cruso414 (Aug 19, 2004)

frikka said:


> Yup. Some cows got on one of our trails and postholed it .Plus we got sprayed with poop.


yeah, I have yet to see anyone on a 4 wheeler sh!t in the middle of our trails.


----------



## HardcoreHardtail (Jul 30, 2009)

I wouldn't want idiot dirtbikers tearing through trails at 50mph while im trying to ride, horse **** may be annoying but it's not as bad as pollutant exhaust fumes and earsplitting engine noise or the chance of getting run over by a kid on a quad.


----------



## jeffw-13 (Apr 30, 2008)

I used to ride the Michaux State Forest in PA quite a bit. They had an area set aside for quads and occasionally I would venture over there on the MTB for a challenging, technical ride. Great fun! The quads were never a threat. You hear them coming from a mile away. They were usually pretty impressed to see a guy out there on a bicycle and usually pretty friendly and easy going. Just share some beef jerky with them and you'll have a friend for life.

I guess the point is that it's not the end of the world, especially if you can get an area set aside just for the quads. At Michaux they stayed off of the off limits areas for the most part and everyone (quads, bikes, hikers, horses) coexisted peacefully.

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/Forestry/atv/Maps/D01_ATV_1.pdf


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

cdale...they already have lots of places to ride, we have two. 

jeff...It's not "just" quads, it'll be all OHV's (monster trucks, mx AND quads). 

The problems is that there has been about three people riding up there this last year illegally on 
the mtb trails. The amount of damage they caused each days has taken us two days just to 
repair. That doesn't leave much time for making trails, doing regular maintenance or riding. 

I agree that some areas mtbing and OHVs can get along. HV is not one of them. As far as creating 
"hidden" trails, they find those too. It's not a big area we have to work with. 

Keep in mind this area is frequented by dog walkers and hikers. 

All we're asking for is just two places to ride our bikes in peace without exhaust fumes and noise.


----------



## wheelerfreak (Jul 3, 2007)

They should just designate everything wilderness, then we won't have to worry about sharing "our" trails with anyone. We won't be allowed either, then we can all feel smug in the superiority of our chosen form of recreation as we watch our bikes rust.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

wheelerfreak said:


> They should just designate everything wilderness, then we won't have to worry about sharing "our" trails with anyone. We won't be allowed either, then we can all feel smug in the superiority of our chosen form of recreation as we watch our bikes rust.


I think you're reading skills are lacking...WE don't want to ban them, WE just want a place for 
ourselves since they have lots of places to themselves. WE support OHV areas, and there's 
lots of places where there would be no resistance to making them OHV only. HARBOURVIEW 
is not one of them.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I don't want access to the west coast trail or China beach etc. 
There SHOULD be places were only hikers can go, the same as there should be places 
where only bikers can go. Hell, on the Galloping Goose trail, there's offshoot trails where 
only equestrians can go. I have no problem with that. South of the Malahat, we have three 
places we can ride...Harbourview, Broomhill and the Dump. Why does the OHV group feel 
they need it ALL?

There was a process that has been going on for over 3 years. Public hearings, studies and 
such that happened way before HV became a park. Now that it is they're crying?


----------



## keylay (Nov 14, 2006)

I didn't read much, but what kind of "Parks" are you talking of? State Parks, National Parks? If so, i don't think they'll ever be allowed unless the goverenment ever thinks the money from tourism will outweight the effects of the use.


----------



## wheelerfreak (Jul 3, 2007)

kauaibullit said:


> I think you're reading skills are lacking...WE don't want to ban them, WE just want a place for
> ourselves since they have lots of places to themselves.\


We just want segregation, really! Put "those" guys in their own area so we aren't exposed to their type. Sweet, that's even better. Divide and conquer, divide and conquer.

By ourselves, I'm assuming you mean mtn bikers, hikers, equestrians and whatever else you deem acceptable?


----------



## mountains (Apr 10, 2009)

HardcoreHardtail said:


> I wouldn't want idiot dirtbikers tearing through trails at 50mph while im trying to ride, horse **** may be annoying but it's not as bad as pollutant exhaust fumes and earsplitting engine noise or the chance of getting run over by a kid on a quad.


I wouldn't want idiot mountain bikers tearing through trails while I'm trying to hike, horse **** may be annoying but it's not as bad as the noise of tires/chains or the chance of getting run over by a kid on a bike.

Ever been to SF? Or Boulder? Also, I didn't read the whole thing, but if monster trucks can ride your trails, they aren't very good trails.


----------



## jeffw-13 (Apr 30, 2008)

kauaibullit said:


> jeff...It's not "just" quads, it'll be all OHV's (monster trucks, mx AND quads).


Understood. My bad. Good luck.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

cruso414 said:


> yeah, I have yet to see anyone on a 4 wheeler sh!t in the middle of our trails.


I have, and it ain't pretty.


----------



## Huck Pitueee (Apr 25, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> cdale...they already have lots of places to ride, we have two.
> 
> jeff...It's not "just" quads, it'll be all OHV's (monster trucks, mx AND quads).
> 
> ...


Just find another place.Done deal.No more problems.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

frikka said:


> Just find another place.Done deal.No more problems.


All the other places have OHVs all over them. This is IT, there is nothing else...at least that 
I can get to without a serious OHV.


----------



## rallyraid (Jun 12, 2007)

Get a KTM, done deal.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

I rode one trail in Idaho that was a shared trail...saw a few guys on motobikes out there, they were friendly, waved, didn't run us off the trail. 
I much prefer them, than the horse poop.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

Quads or singletrack, you can't have both on a trail.

*kauaibullit*, I feel your pain. I hate motorized users. Bring on the horses, at least they're quite and slow.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Shark said:


> I rode one trail in Idaho that was a shared trail...saw a few guys on motobikes out there, they were friendly, waved, didn't run us off the trail.
> I much prefer them, than the horse poop.


^^^^As far as a KTM, I work on boats all day, the last thing I want is to hear another motor and 
smell CO, CO2, S2O, NOx and other hydrocarbons and smoke/soot from yet another engine.

Idaho is a lot drier than it is out here in Sooke, the damage from one quad or MX trying to get up 
our trails as the tires spin is amazing. We have spent over a hundred man hours this past year 
REPAIRING damage caused by two quads and a MX that rode the trails the last 5-6 months. This is the reality WE face.

If you look at a map of our area, the HV park is a very small area of the amount that OHVs 
already use, have access to and have a trail network set up. I would support whole heartedly 
a proposal to make those areas official. Harbourview is a small area in total, and the OHVs 
can get access to Shields lake and beyond coming from a different direction which would 
be less driving to get to for 99% of the OHV users in our area (from Goldstream near the 
Malahat).

I'm not saying that ALL OHV users are dicks, it's just that the ones that are (and there are 
quite a few) don't wave, say hi, help with trail work, not do they care about who's trail they 
are destroying. If they can't respect us now that it is illegal to ride there, how are they going 
to act if this get put through?


----------



## jeffw-13 (Apr 30, 2008)

crashtestdummy said:


> *kauaibullit*, Bring on the horses, at least they're quite and slow.


I was riding some narrow single track a few weeks ago & came up behind a couple horses plodding along. No possibility of passing for nearly a mile so I had no choice but to follow them at walking speed at a safe distance (one of the horses was very spooky) and try to dodge the land mines.

I'll take the quads & motos


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

jeffw-13 said:


> I was riding some narrow single track a few weeks ago & came up behind a couple horses plodding along. No possibility of passing for nearly a mile so I had no choice but to follow them at walking speed at a safe distance (one of the horses was very spooky) and try to dodge the land mines.
> 
> I'll take the quads & motos


Every area is different...what may work in California or Idaho won't work here. Topography, hydrology 
and the geology of an area as well as socio-politics come in to play. We don't ride the hiking 
trails, the hikers don't hike the biking trails, the hike/bike trails we share just fine. We don't ride 
the horse trails, they don't ride ours and the trails we share are wide enough to avoid poo and 
horses. I have had no problems with hikers/equestrians while biking and I have had no problems 
with equestrians/bikers while hiking...I HAVE had problems with motos. Our trails cannot 
keep up with motos and still be maintained as hiking and biking trails.

AGAIN, the OHVs have easily 1000:1 the area we do for biking already, for them to want 
this ONE area (which would basically make it "everywhere") is absurd.


----------



## Huck Pitueee (Apr 25, 2009)

Wow that sucks.I know how much effort goes into a trail.Hope things work out for you.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

frikka said:


> Wow that sucks.I know how much effort goes into a trail.Hope things work out for you.


Writing a letter would help us out. Even if you don't live here.


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

*Let's get rid of those darned hikers!*

Those liberal snobs. They cut trails all through the wilderness and then tromp all over the vegetation. Most worstly of all people scare wildlife and so these destructive creeps are out there disturbing the precious little birdies and bunny rabbits. Please sign my petition to have ALL hikers removed from our public lands!


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

davidarnott said:


> Those liberal snobs. They cut trails all through the wilderness and then tromp all over the vegetation. Most worstly of all people scare wildlife and so these destructive creeps are out there disturbing the precious little birdies and bunny rabbits. Please sign my petition to have ALL hikers removed from our public lands!


*face palm*

Again, you are missing the point. OHVs deserve a area to go to, It is just NOT Harbourview. 
It has nothing to do with hating OHVs, I own and use my 4x4. WE don't feel they need to have ALL 
the land to rip up. We just want ONE area in our town where we can get away from the noise, danger 
and pollution OHVs bring. Why is that so wrong?


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

*why Is That So Wrong?*

Why is it so wrong that I want to get rid of hikers? I just want a nice safe environment for the birdies and bunnies. Hikers are RUINING my wilderness experience! I'll file a lawsuit against the government. I'll PROVE that hikers are disturbing the ecology!! I'll get those public lands shut down for everybody!!!


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Now you're just being and idiot. 

Now if it was Cigar smoking hikers that carried 600W boomboxes on their shoulders I'd agree. 
Guess what, THAT is already illegal, so why should you be able to make louder noises just 
because it's a vehicle?


----------



## ae111black (Dec 27, 2008)

The funny thing is the trails I ride were built in the late 70's by motocrossers http://www.rideyourbike.com/kulani.html http://www.singletracks.com/bike-trails/kulani-.html ..... and We came in and took over LOL!!! but I hate it when they come in and rip it up because it Screws up the trail BIG TIME!! We are just lucky that the "Quad" crowd won't go there because the trails are to narrow for them!


----------



## Howeler (Sep 23, 2005)

Would more off-roaders coming into Sooke mean even more money to the local business? 

Down here in SoCal they seem to have a lot of disposable income. Much more so than us dirtbag bikers...well me anyways.

I feel your pain and know you're in for a long ugly battle. Any local or National bike coalitions that can help?

Last time I was up there, I couldn't find a decent fish taco....has that changed?


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Howeler said:


> Would more off-roaders coming into Sooke mean even more money to the local business?
> 
> Down here in SoCal they seem to have a lot of disposable income. Much more so than us dirtbag bikers...well me anyways.
> 
> ...


No extra money because they wouldn't need to come into Sooke to ride. It's another 10+ minutes the wrong way (if they're coming from anywhere other than Sooke) to get to Sooke town. That's why I advocate them opening up the areas west of Sooke, it would make the OHV people drive through town to get to the riding (that already exists, just not 
officially yet). The hikers and bikers using HV now are mostly locals and some Victoria riders, 
but it's my hope that when the hotels open that it will be a draw. All we have right now is one zipline trip, and some fishing charters (and ONE whale watching company). We need more 
for the tourists to do, and hiking/biking could be huge.

No fish tacos but I had some great fish and chips at purple fish (or something like that) d/t Victoria the other day I was down there.


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

*now you're just being and idiot*

I want those greenies OUT of the wilderness. Jerks. My favorite senator from New York is sponsoring a REAL wilderness bill that would exclude EVERYBODY from our public lands. What Joy! Finally the birdies and bunnies will get a little peace and quiet. When wilderness is outlawed only outlaws will enjoy the wilderness. Why can't they just leave the plants alone? Instead of stomping all over them!


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

davidarnott said:


> I want those greenies OUT of the wilderness. Jerks. My favorite senator from New York is sponsoring a REAL wilderness bill that would exclude EVERYBODY from our public lands. What Joy! Finally the birdies and bunnies will get a little peace and quiet. When wilderness is outlawed only outlaws will enjoy the wilderness. Why can't they just leave the plants alone? Instead of stomping all over them!


Seriously are you 10? WTF does that have to do w/ anything I've said?

There is a time and place for everything, and Harbourview isn't the place and the time had past 
for OHVs. No one is advocating getting rid of OHVs in the areas they have (except maybe the 
Sierra club...they don't even want boats on the ocean), what we are fighting for is the right do 
have peace in ONE place in this area. WTF is wrong with that?

....Or are you just a troll I should put on ignore?


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

If you want to know more about the situation BEFORE you start making an ass of yourself (davidarnott) check out the link below from the local mountain bike advocacy groups website:
http://www.simbs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2603

We are on an island and have lost many riding areas over the past few years to developments and golf courses, so there is not a ton of land we can just go out and ride. We only have ONE legal area to ride our bikes in...and yes it is a great place that is well maintained...but...it's not enough. So we have been working with the CRD for YEARS to get the HV area opened up to mountain bikers, and now....just as the park plan was about to get approved the OHV people come in and make a stink...so thousands of hours of volunteer time are potentially wasted.

I know to some of you this seems very NIMBY....but you have no clue how much of a struggle it has been in Victoria to get where we are now. I have no issues with people bringing logical, smart conversation to this but if you are being an asshat just to stir the pot....go away, your negative asshatery is not needed here...thank you.


----------



## OGJON (Apr 15, 2009)

Steamer19 said:


> the wide, low pressure tires they have that their is very little environmental damage.


to an extent this is true

well @ least for a well set up 4wd/suv
wider, bigger mud tyres running @ 16psi are going to have a larger foot print giving much better flotation over the ground = more traction means that the drivers doesn't have to drive so hard to get through a certain obstacle which in turn will leave less track/trail destruction
add to the set up of suspension & body lift means less contact with the ground with body parts means the tracks/trails don't get ploughed with front & rear bumpers
& again add diff locks front & rear means that a 4wd can crawl through obstacles @ walking pace without wheel spin which in turn will leave very little to no impact on the ground.

whereas 2wd cars, motos, quads & the like are more likely to cause damage than a well set up 4wd. Horses also are bad for the environment well the crap is along with their hoof marks, where I live there a several horse riders that are happy to let their horse crap all over the sign posted mtb specific trails & their hooves chop up the ground & moto's also speed through the trails tearing up the area. 4wdrivers on the other hand there are specific tracks for them & they all seem to stay on them.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

OGJON said:


> to an extent this is true
> 
> well @ least for a well set up 4wd/suv
> wider, bigger mud tyres running @ 16psi are going to have a larger foot print giving much better flotation over the ground = more traction means that the drivers doesn't have to drive so hard to get through a certain obstacle which in turn will leave less track/trail destruction
> ...


Very good points, same reasons why a mtb tire is less impact than feet. The issues come 
when someone has a lead foot or like to skid (mtb). A 250hp truck spinning four tires is going 
to tear up lots of moss/lichen and dirt. We have a lot of people here in Sooke that walk in circles 
their right foot is so heavy.


----------



## OGJON (Apr 15, 2009)

have you guys/gals thought about making your tracks more a north shore type of trail?
surely this would make your trails less appealing to moto's & quads & even horses.
the trails I've been working on I've been putting in more & more north shore TTF which has reduced the moto's & horse rides use on the mtb trails, however in doing so I've made the TTF's over engineered & beefy enough not to break in case some moto riders do choose to attempt riding them.


----------



## OGJON (Apr 15, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> Very good points, same reasons why a mtb tire is less impact than feet. The issues come
> when someone has a lead foot or like to skid (mtb). A 250hp truck spinning four tires is going
> to tear up lots of moss/lichen and dirt. We have a lot of people here in Sooke that walk in circles
> their right foot is so heavy.


agree totally, & their the ones ruining the trails for all :madman: shame on them :nono: 
the main problem for the majority of MTB trails is how to prevent these idiot ppl from using the trails, it seems like signs don't work on the most part as ppl either ignore them or pull them down


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

Yes...there were trails with more stunts....but the CRD tore them all down because they were scared of getting sued. So all trails have to have mostly natural TTF's (technical trail features), they have not even fully warmed up to IMBA standards for TTF's.


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

Help us by signing the petition....
http://www.petitiononline.com/not4ohv/petition.html


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2010)

There is no chance in hell id ever pick a side, nor want to kick any people out of the same trails i like to have fun on. Ive been riding 4wheelers for 17years, racing for 10, i have 2 of my own, im an avid hiker and an up and coming Mtn Biker, i honestly would have no problem sharing my trails with a 4wheeler. Hell, i dont even buy Camelbak products for the simple fact that every time someone buys one a profit goes to a charity or some stupid **** where they shut down an "OHV" trail, its stupid, its complete BS. What if every time a Dirt Biker or a 4wheeler bought a helmet, some of that money went to shutting down hiking trails because we flattened them out too much? Pretty stupid eh!?!? I am in no way trying to get a rise out of anyone, theres just always both sides. 
We all love the outdoors, no one is wrong, no one is right, an opinion is an opinion. Ill MTB, Hike and ride my 4wheeler all on the same trail with a smile on my face. Were all just trying to have fun and enjoy life.
IMO, you may just need to suck it up and learn to ride better....However, around here they dont allow "OHV's" as yall call them to roam the local trails at all, the closest motorsports park is 1.5hrs away, which i have no problem travelling to, we need a place to ride just like i need a place to hike lol. Yet it would stump me as to why they would even allow Mountain Bikers on the same trails as 4wheelers or dirt bikes, call me capt. obvious but it seems a bit hazardous to your health..or could be...


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

frikka said:


> Just find another place.Done deal.No more problems.


It's an island. There is no "other place".


----------



## isleblue65 (Sep 5, 2009)

I gladly signed the petition. There should be some areas that are designated for groups, not only for the safety of the users but to maintain the type of trail conditions those users want.

People like Doobie overlook the fact that fast motorized vehicles mixed with slower horses and bikes is a potentially catastrophic mix. It's more fun to ride an ATV or dirt bike in a place where you don't have to worry about slamming into a horse around every corner anyway, right?

Secondly, if you have mountain biked in an area where motorized vehicles go off-roading you would know that riding through 8" of silt and torn-up rutted conditions isn't fun. I have seen first hand the damage caused to MTB trails when poached by dirt bikes in Montana and California. 

IMHO, horses also cause damage to trails that takes away from the qualities that make them fun to MTB. However, my biggest argument about horses is that they are not required to have SH*T bags behind their tails (like parade horses), or that the riders aren't required to clean up after their animals so that everyone behind them doesn't have to ride through it. I don't leave sh*t on the trail, why should they?

If everyone has access to every trail, then eventually all trails will be exclusively used by dirt bikes and ATVs simply for the fact that these users suffer no loss of the quality of their sport by using horse or bike trails. I won't ride somewhere where I have to compete with off-road vehicles flying up behind me, the loss of a quiet wilderness experience and undeniable damage to cycling trails.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2010)

isleblue65 said:


> People like Doobie overlook the fact that fast motorized vehicles mixed with slower horses and bikes is a potentially catastrophic mix. It's more fun to ride an ATV or dirt bike in a place where you don't have to worry about slamming into a horse around every corner anyway, right?


No, i dont at all overlook anything, nor did i, I actually had stated that in my post. I dont get why there would ever be a "mixed" trail for Mountain Bikers, along with 4wheelers, and dirt bikes, like i said in my post above, it seems quite hazardous to peoples health or could be if something did indeed happen, ending in something quite catastrophic. I 100% understand where youre coming from, and AGAIN, as stated in my post above, there is a motorsports park about 1.5 hours away that i am more than happy to drive to, to ride my 4wheelers on thousands of acres, where they are in fact allowed to ride, and numerous of local mountains i roam. I personally wouldnt ever ride on a trail with Mountain Bikers if i was on my 4wheeler, way too dangerous, but if it did come down to it, once again, as stated in my post above, i wouldnt mind sharing the trails with them if need be. Thankfully, i live in one of the best spots IMO to MTB, so thankfully we have more than an arse load of designated trails/areas/ mountains. 
And as for the horses, my GF is a horse lover, but i cant/ couldnt/ and dont want to stand for horsies on my trails, between the fact that they could get spooked super easily when we ride by, especially if in a group, which in that case could be hazardous to the rider of the horse themselves, and not to mention the amount of poop that is laying in the middle of the trail along with the horse shoe ruts...if you catch some deep mud and a horse has tromped through there and youre hiking, if the hole is deep enough you could by chance sprain an ankle. 
All in all, yes, there should be Designated areas. But theres no reason to get overly worked up about it.


----------



## InlawBiker (Aug 19, 2009)

rallyraid said:


> Get a KTM, done deal.


It's not that simple here in WA. The motorcycle riders are ALSO losing their riding land because of OHV and quad-tards tearing up the terrain.

Enduro riding groups spend a LOT of time and money maintaining trails, building bridges, removing downed trees and cleaning up trash around here.

OHVs need to stay in their designated areas, but they don't. Quads can ruin single track and it's not hard to find a jackass in an OHV pushing his way through the narrow trails. Some of the lower land they stomp on looks like a squad of tanks rolled through the woods. It's awful.

I ride a MTB and KTM and don't see a conflict. You can hear a motorcycle coming from a long ways away. Motorbikes should never be in designated MTB parks obviously. Horse riders should get their own land too. The bikes spook the horses, I do feel bad for those folks.


----------



## icecreamjay (Apr 13, 2004)

Whats the matter, don't you want to see this on your trails


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Anyone who suggests that mountain bikes and ATV's can share trails hasn't tried to ride a mountain bike trail that has been "taken over" by quads in a rain forest (Sooke B.C. is in a rain forest).

Should off-road motorized vehicles be able to access the back country on Vancouver Island?
Yes. They do have all kinds of access to tens of thousands of acres of crown (government owned) land.

Should trail users on Vancouver Island recognize and respect the different types of trails?
Yes. 
That doesn't come close to happening. 4 wheelers are trying to ride on singletrack, Motos are using the local dual slalom mtb race course in a City park as a hill climb. Mountain bikers are riding on little old lady dog walking trails. Little old ladies are walking dogs on mountain bike trails.

The Sooke Hooligans are purposely looking for MTB and Moto singletrack to tear apart just to entertain themselves. They have lots of places to ride. They choose to break into well marked non-motorized areas to ruin things not only for hikers and mountain bikers but for legitimate and respectable ATV riders as well.

Sadly, in British Columbia, the Sooke Hooligans attitude is NOT isolated. The respectable ATV riders and clubs would like people to think so but you can't go anywhere on Vancouver Island without finding established mountain bike trails that have been destroyed by ATVs and motos.

In the past 10 years I have personally built over 40 km (about 25 miles) of carefully crafted singletrack. This has taken thousands of hours as I only work with hand tools, not even a chainsaw. All these trails are on private property (with the landowner's permission) or in parks (with the government's permission). None of these areas allow motorized vehicles.

Of all the trails I've built in the last 10 years, there is a 3km section that hasn't been destroyed (as MTB singletrack) by motorized vehicles accessing the land illegally.

That's just on one tiny area of Vancouver Island. The problem is province wide. You can go on any mountain bike forum in British Columbia and read about the destruction of the trails across the province.

Although there are some laws prohibiting the kind of activity that is causing this destruction, there are no people to enforce these laws. There is no way to identify the culprits and no park rangers, by-law officers, police, etc. to chase them down and stop them.

The people who like this kind of activity know this. They move here from other provinces just because they have heard there are no rules in BC. They know it's wrong but they also know they won't get caught.

I'm an old man and I'll be dead soon. You youngsters will have to live with these people running your governments and businesses. Actually, you are now. Most of the people I run into out there tearing up the trails I built for the local middle school kid's mountain bike club are "respected" members of the community, business owners, professionals, etc.

BC used to be a good place to live, now it just sucks. Thank the Campbell Provincial Government for that.


----------



## swisscross (Oct 20, 2008)

Do you own the land?
The land is public correct?
If that is the case, everyone has the right to use it as they see fit.

Sorry, but that is the reality of the situation.
Sucks huh? Find another place to ride.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

swisscross said:


> Do you own the land?
> The land is public correct?
> If that is the case, everyone has the right to use it as they see fit.
> 
> ...


You don't read before posting. Do you?


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2010)

Trail Ninja said:


> You don't read before posting. Do you?


Lol.


----------



## Blksocks (Dec 22, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> Seriously are you 10? WTF does that have to do w/ anything I've said?
> 
> There is a time and place for everything, and Harbourview isn't the place and the time had past
> for OHVs. No one is advocating getting rid of OHVs in the areas they have (except maybe the
> ...


Watch it or he'll start rhyming! :madman:


----------



## jmadams13 (Sep 28, 2008)

HardcoreHardtail said:


> I wouldn't want idiot dirtbikers tearing through trails at 50mph while im trying to ride, horse **** may be annoying but it's not as bad as pollutant exhaust fumes and earsplitting engine noise or the chance of getting run over by a kid on a quad.


amen brother...

Some here would really rather have motorized vehicles on the trails over horses? I'm sorry, but that's just sad. Equestrians are good allies to have to have on our side. They enjoy many of the same trails we do, and around here, have helped keep the motors out of the woods, unless in designated areas. Many of the trails are mixed use, and safety is very important, if not priority one. These mixed use trails are a pleasure, and I happen to enjoy coming across families hiking with their kids, dogs, and horse back riders. I can't imagine what it would be like to have the sound of engines ruining the serenity of being on a machine powered by me in the woods, farmland, whatnot and the smell of exhaust killing the mood. If I wanted to that, I would stay in the city and ride. or not ride at all and drive my car for fun.


----------



## LandoCommando (Feb 26, 2009)

As an avid OHVer *AND* MTBer I can honestly say a lot of you talk out your ***.
You cant really speak unless youve been on both sides of the fence.

Coming to a trail near you....


----------



## Jlar (May 29, 2006)

swisscross said:


> Do you own the land?
> The land is public correct?
> If that is the case, everyone has the right to use it as they see fit.
> 
> ...


Not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you??


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

i feel your pain, same problem here in my part of ontario. vandalism of trails by quads in posted non motorized zones. apathetic, useless enforcement one all levels. only solution is to build trails that the quads can not ride. my features/trails exploit the inherent tippy-ness of the quads (which is pretty easy to do). the enduro/motorbike guys hate them also because of the damage they cause. the 4x4 guys mostly stay on old farm/logging roads/right of ways so not really a problem and quite legal.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

singlesprocket said:


> i feel your pain, same problem here in my part of ontario. vandalism of trails by quads in posted non motorized zones. apathetic, useless enforcement one all levels. only solution is to build trails that the quads can not ride. my features/trails exploit the inherent tippy-ness of the quads (which is pretty easy to do).


"Just when you make something foolproof, they come up with a more ingenious fool".

Great theory, however I am always amazed at what the quadtards will do to poach a trail. We line trails with rocks and logs to narrow them down to single track, and yet the quads will still try to go down them. I think a good solution would be either an open season on them, or a substantial bounty.


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

they will always try that's for sure. narrow bench cuts in steep ravines screws them up. plus really steep steps/drops (+4') off logs gets them also.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

LandoCommando said:


> As an avid OHVer *AND* MTBer I can honestly say a lot of you talk out your ***.
> You cant really speak unless youve been on both sides of the fence.
> 
> Coming to a trail near you....


That looks like nice dry hard clay....a far cry different from the loamy west coast rain forest we 
have here that the OHVs ARE destroying and opening up HV will just accelerate the damage.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2010)

LandoCommando said:


> As an avid OHVer *AND* MTBer I can honestly say a lot of you talk out your ***.
> You cant really speak unless youve been on both sides of the fence.
> 
> Coming to a trail near you....


Thank you. Exactly how i see it. Once your on both sides of the spectrum, its 100% different. 4wheelers/OHV'ers/Riders, Unite lol!


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

See....most of you don't know the whole story...or assume because it works where you live that is MUST work here....that leap of logic is what is making you look stupid in this thread.

As has already been stated many times...we are not in a dry arid climate like in that pic...we are in a wet, rooty, muddy coastal rain forest, this is parkland that the CRD has already stated MANY times no motorized traffic.

Here is an excerpt from the draft plan explaining why motorized vehicles were not accommodated:

_4.12.5 Motorized Vehicle Access 
The issue of motorized vehicle access is associated with the Sea to Sea Regional Park. Prior to acquisition as a regional park, the public could access these private forestry lands with motorized vehicles along a network of old logging roads and trails. When CRD Regional Parks acquired the land, motorized vehicle access was prohibited for the following reasons:

"The Sea to Sea Regional Park has conservation covenants placed on it which prohibit public motorized use within the park past the Harbourview Road parking lot gate.

The Sea to Sea Regional Park is being established as a wilderness area, where the intent of the park is to protect environmental values and to provide opportunities for visitors to engage in recreational activities with a minimal impact on the natural environment.

The CRD Parks Master Plan (2000) [Bylaw No. 2743] under Visitor-Use Activities (page 51) addresses appropriate and inappropriate visitor use activities in Regional Parks and Trails. Motorized vehicle use is defined as an inappropriate activity within the following context:

Appropriate visitor use activities support appreciation and understanding of the natural environment through participation in compatible, minimal-impact activities dependent upon a natural setting for their enjoyment, while&#8230;

Inappropriate visitor use activities are prohibited by bylaw, cause excessive noise and environmental impacts, and significantly interfere with the enjoyment or activities of other visitors.

CRD Bylaw 2721, Sections 40 through 44, address motorized vehicle use in regional parks and trails. In particular, Section 40(1) states that no person shall drive any type of motor vehicle in a park or on a trail except in designated areas. The Sea to Sea Regional Park has no roads or trails designated for public motorized vehicle use beyond the Harbourview Road parking lot gate.

CRD Regional Parks supports working collaboratively with stakeholders and the province to prepare a trail plan for the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area that would include opportunities for off- highway vehicle access and use._"

To add more to this when we were in talks to make this an official MTB park CRD wanted to make sure that we would not destroy this one type of moss up there that grows on the rocks...with our singletrack...this moss almost lost us access to the park....so it really surprises me that they are thinking of letting the rock crawling crew in there (the moss only grows on the rocks).

I also posted a link earlier that gives more history on this (will post again for those with reading comprehension issues):
http://www.simbs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2603

I know that reading is hard....but give it a shot...it's amazing what you can learn. Also..there are some great video's in the first post of this thread that show the OHV crowd in action out in sooke.

And here is another video of the area from a MTB perspective:
http://www.pinkbike.com/video/108111/


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

actually your ground is more stable and well drained then around here even though you are in a rain forest... sheesh
but i guess the rain forest magically changes a quads center of gravity where you are so the rules of physics need not apply... weaksauce


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

kauaibullit said:


> That looks like nice dry hard clay....a far cry different from the loamy west coast rain forest we
> have here that the OHVs ARE destroying and opening up HV will just accelerate the damage.


That photo is of a road. Trust me, there is plenty of damage occurring in desert soils. There is often very little vegetation to aid in preventing erosion due to limited precipitation. Once a rut is started it can become a substantial gully in very short order.

Historically, things have changed rapidly in my lifetime. A lot of us were around before the quads were even available. The 3 wheelers were never much of a problem where I grew up, and I just didn't see many of them. The motorcycles were out there but they didn't seem as ubiquitous as what I see now with the 4 wheel ATVs and it wasn't as easy to just go charging through, up, and over everything in sight. Now it seems like the trend is to outfit every fat lazy member of the family with a 4 wheeler so they can get their bucket ass into the backcountry. I have seen the number of illegal trails escalate exponentially over the last 20 years due to 4 wheel ATVs.

I use a 4 wheeler quite often for my work, and I don't have a problem with responsible riders that aren't messing up single track or creating new trails. Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots on the things that wouldn't be out there if they couldn't do it without exerting much energy. Combine that with the damage that can happen so rapidly at the push of a lever or twist of a throttle and it's inevitable that problems will ensue. I feel your pain kauaibullit.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

singlesprocket said:


> actually your ground is more stable and well drained then around here even though you are in a rain forest... sheesh
> but i guess the rain forest magically changes a quads center of gravity where you are so the rules of physics need not apply... weaksauce


Actually while drainage is pretty damn good (especially compared to Kauai where I came from, which 
is red dirt/clay), the loam is very soft and tears up very easily, also there are some moss and lichen 
that are very rare on some parts of the mountain (which almost got MTB's excluded from the 
plan). This moss is very deep, like a peat bog.

As was posted by Mudpuppy, this: http://www.pinkbike.com/video/108111/ is where we're talking about.


----------



## transient (May 6, 2006)

OK kids, let's step into the way back machine for a minute, because I think it is important to gain some perspective on this. 

Any of the long standing trails at harbourview were built by either enduro or trials bikes long before any of us considered riding bikes in the woods (the same goes for the dump, skirt mtn, burnt bridge, cobble hill mtn, tzouhalem, and pretty much anywhere else we ride bikes). When I first started riding at harbourview in the early 90's those were the only trails there. My Dad has stories of riding his trials bike back there in the 70's. The area was initially closed and the roads decomissioned to keep trucks and random hooligans from being able to access the back side of the reservoir where Victoria's water supply comes from. But, they still got in and they continue to get in. There is a maze of fireroads that start way past Sooke and crisscross the sooke hills that provide unlimited access to anyone with a sense of direction or a gps.

So, while trails getting destroyed by irresponsible users sucks, it is important to be aware of the history of the area. I have no problem with trials or even enduro bikes riding single track in the area, but I personally loathe riding through a clearing and seeing the moss torn up because some douche on a motocross bike decided to do doughnuts. Like any sport, there are responsible users and those that go out of their way to ruin it for everyone else, this includes the 4x4 community. The best way to keep unwanted users out is to build trails they can't ride, tight trees, rock faces, etc., and have these obstacles right at the beginning of the trail. 

To the OP: I appreciate your convictions in trying to make a difference. But you seem new to the area and it might be a good idea to educate yourself on some of it's history before pulling out your soapbox. Harbourview is not unique, there have been numerous areas around Victoria that have been lost to development, all of which faced multi-user conflicts just like Harbourview. In fact, I can think of having to decide between 10+ trail systems in the western communities alone. Your efforts may be better spent working with SIMBS rather than trying to chase away potential visitors who mostly reside in the Southwest US.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

transient said:


> OK kids, let's step into the way back machine for a minute, because I think it is important to gain some perspective on this.
> 
> Any of the long standing trails at harbourview were built by either enduro or trials bikes long before any of us considered riding bikes in the woods (the same goes for the dump, skirt mtn, burnt bridge, cobble hill mtn, tzouhalem, and pretty much anywhere else we ride bikes). When I first started riding at harbourview in the early 90's those were the only trails there. My Dad has stories of riding his trials bike back there in the 70's. The area was initially closed and the roads decomissioned to keep trucks and random hooligans from being able to access the back side of the reservoir where Victoria's water supply comes from. But, they still got in and they continue to get in. There is a maze of fireroads that start way past Sooke and crisscross the sooke hills that provide unlimited access to anyone with a sense of direction or a gps.
> 
> ...


I understand the history, just because we did things in the old days doesn't make them ok today. 
The process to create a park at Harbourview has been going on for well over 5 years, of which 
I helped with letter writing and phone calls. Just because the area was logged 10+ years ago 
and was trashed by OHVs 3-4 years ago doesn't mean that something really nice can't be 
created. Butchart gardens was a rock quarry and look at it now. Just because it was trashed 
doesn't mean we need to continue trashing it or that it won't become a real nice place.

I agree that many of the trails up there were created by a motorcycle riding over a area over 
and over again till it became a trail. No thought was given to run off or mosses. TLC and CRD 
are trying to change this.

I am a member of SIMBS and I am involved there too. Not sure about the whole "driving 
away" people comment, but I have a hope that Sooke can become a tourist destination. 
It has huge potential to be MORE than just another suburb of Victoria. I see HV as a destination 
for hikers and bikers as I do for the many of the hills west of Sooke as a draw for BC/Washington 
OHV users to use as well. Thing is, that most OHV users that will/would use HV if it were to 
open again will be coming for the day. These people will not be driving further into Sooke 
when they are done...they'll be driving back to Victoria or Duncan. Getting their gas and eating 
in Langford or further.



> In fact, I can think of having to decide between 10+ trail systems in the western communities alone.


Not sure what this means.


----------



## transient (May 6, 2006)

I think that you may have missed my point here. I'm not saying that OHV users are fabulous or that they should even be allowed at HV, and I am also not saying that we shouldn't move beyond the destruction created in the past. One of my points is that responsible OHV users deserve some respect in the land use process given their history in the area. The other is that you will never be able to keep them out of Harbourview, there simply aren't the resources. The best we can do is make it inconvenient for them.

Most of the trails you talk about as having 'no thought to run-off or mosses' have stood the test of time and require very little maintenance, even today. They were built by responsible users who didn't create bad fall lines and avoided standing water. If you have ridden the original Neild Rd. trails from before mtbers started building stunts up there, they were excellent examples.

To address your last point, in the colwood, langford, sooke, metchosin, highlands area, there used to be at least 10 different trail networks. All of which had user conflicts, just like HV. But somehow everyone still got to enjoy them. Now that most of those areas have been lost to development and there are tens of thousands more people in the 'westshore' area, the pressure has shifted to those that remain. I'm not very familiar with what has gone on in the last few years with the CRD, TLC and Harbourview, but if the CRD wants to make it a non-motorized vehicle only park, that is awesome and I hope they can move forward with it.

As a side note, your timeline is quite far off in terms of logging and OHV access for the area. I have been riding out there for about 20 years and it was logged long before that.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

transient said:


> I
> 
> To address your last point, in the colwood, langford, sooke, metchosin, highlands area, there used to be at least 10 different trail networks. All of which had user conflicts, just like HV. But somehow everyone still got to enjoy them. Now that most of those areas have been lost to development and there are tens of thousands more people in the 'westshore' area, the pressure has shifted to those that remain. I'm not very familiar with what has gone on in the last few years with the CRD, TLC and Harbourview, but if the CRD wants to make it a non-motorized vehicle only park, that is awesome and I hope they can move forward with it.
> 
> As a side note, your timeline is quite far off in terms of logging and OHV access for the area. I have been riding out there for about 20 years and it was logged long before that.


I agree 100% that there should be access for OHVs in the Sooke area. There are lots of trails 
that exist already and are prime for the city of Sooke to step in and help with the process. 
Much of that land is forestry, but most is district land that with the help of 4x4 clubs could easily 
get a waiver system or permit system in place. Access to Shields lake is do-able from several 
different places...whether it be from the potholes area (not the best option but if the lumber 
guys can get access up there, then there's hope for OHVs), there's also potential to continue 
the access from the Goldstream area. The Sooke community plan already states that OHVs 
will be included in the process.

Yeah, I knew it was more than 10 years (probably closer to 25), my bad.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2010)

I tend to keep my toys on the track, designated trails, and motorsports park.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

*Come on man*

Honestly...... I have a few things to say about this. First off, if quads and dirtbikes can even ride your trails they must not be that great. Second if they are on your trails *do something about it!* You don't need to recruit everyone, make rock chokes so they can't fit, hell make your trails hard to access and ride on via OHV's, by this I mean, narrow singletrack, very tight turns once in a while, and as I said before rock chokes at various points along the trail. Also in those videos, I don't even see many of them riding on actually bike trails; I just see some people having a good time. I'm sure if they were riding at my place I'd feel exactly the same as you, and I have had OHV's riding on my trails, to discourage them we just made them extra hard to ride, even on our own bikes. Also as other people have stated it depends on the riders.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

"Also in those videos, I don't even see many of them riding on actually bike trails; I just see some people having a good time."

Watch the video. Pay attention around 3:20. Those are (were) singletrack mountainbike trails. It doesnt take too many passes with a quad to make them unrecognizable as MTB trails.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

swisscross said:


> Do you own the land?
> The land is public correct?
> If that is the case, everyone has the right to use it as they see fit.
> 
> ...


Sorry, this is not positive or constructive but only one word comes to mind

Idiot.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

Trail Ninja said:


> "Also in those videos, I don't even see many of them riding on actually bike trails; I just see some people having a good time."
> 
> Watch the video. Pay attention around 3:20. Those are (were) singletrack mountainbike trails. It doesnt take too many passes with a quad to make them unrecognizable as MTB trails.


Yea that's just disrespectful, but other than that i don't mind hearing a motor running while I'm riding because I'm usually more focused on the trail. Basically as long as they aren't on the singletrack i don't mind.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

ajd245246 said:


> Yea that's just disrespectful, but other than that i don't mind hearing a motor running while I'm riding because I'm usually more focused on the trail. Basically as long as they aren't on the singletrack i don't mind.


So after 75 posts it should be obvious what we (Sooke MTBR members here) have been saying 
is that they are damaging singletrack and they have ZERO respect for others and this is why 
they need their own place to ride away from the hiking/biking nature PARK that is Harbourview.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

kauaibullit said:


> So after 75 posts it should be obvious what we (Sooke MTBR members here) have been saying
> is that they are damaging singletrack and they have ZERO respect for others and this is why
> they need their own place to ride away from the hiking/biking nature PARK that is Harbourview.


I think everyone would agree *"yes"* to that.


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

Third Forum but here we go again

I have posted on 2 forums about this. I am an avid MTB, also hiker and Quadder. One of your arguments for not allowing Harbour View to be a multi-use area is that no income will come to Sooke from OHVer's because they are 10 min drive short of the town of Sooke. Well that also applies to the MTB crowd and hikers. 
Also the CRD increased the watershed area closing more land to all users, in doing this they have closed access to shields lake from goldstream. Trust me I tried to hike it and was escorted out by CRD employees.
In the other forums I spoke of trail filters and Describe briefly on how and where these would be most effective. But all I got was they wont work that is stupid. I have said Harbour View is a vast area (including the sooke hills) and has many access points it would be almost impossible to stop any OHV from coming in. I think it would be better to allow them but have trails clearly marked then when MTB or Hiking trails are destroyed it will give you more amo to make a MTB park in the area. Also you could set up Broomhill as a MTB park which brings riders thru Sooke bringing money to the town.
Alot of riding areas have been lost to development but the local riders have to remember those trails were made by OHV's and then adapted to MTB. But they were built on Private land and it was sold. Just as you have said there are alot of areas for OHV's there is just as many for MTB. I ride Burntbridge alot and see OHV's all the time you can hear them coming, they are always friendly and slow down and wave and because they have a motor they are gone leaving you to your ride.

I don't think the CRD will allow them into Harbour View but this does open a door for the OHV crowd to develop an area for them. And there has been mention of the Metchosen
motorbike club (Nield Rd club). it is a private club and only members can ride there. So do not count it in your areas for OHV's.


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> So after 75 posts it should be obvious what we (Sooke MTBR members here) have been saying
> is that they are damaging singletrack and they have ZERO respect for others and this is why
> they need their own place to ride away from the hiking/biking nature PARK that is Harbourview.


You keep saying they. Stop it they refers to all OHV's, the videos are of the "Holigans" call them by there name.
When you say they, them it is a generalization.

Generalizations breed ignorance.


----------



## RetroG (Jan 16, 2004)

swisscross said:


> If that is the case, everyone has the right to use it as they see fit.


Hey man, you just blow in from Stupidtown or sumpthin?


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

legionnair said:


> Generalizations breed ignorance.


Recreational ATVs are ghey, all OHVs suck when ridden illegally. If your county is going to legalize an area for OHVs, it's obviously not a big hiking/equestrian use area and those motorized vehicles pull more economy in than our mtbs. Unless you can get the equestrians and hikers on your side not much will happen.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

legionnair said:


> Third Forum but here we go again
> 
> I have posted on 2 forums about this. I am an avid MTB, also hiker and Quadder. One of your arguments for not allowing Harbour View to be a multi-use area is that no income will come to Sooke from OHVer's because they are 10 min drive short of the town of Sooke. Well that also applies to the MTB crowd and hikers.
> Also the CRD increased the watershed area closing more land to all users, in doing this they have closed access to shields lake from goldstream. Trust me I tried to hike it and was escorted out by CRD employees.
> ...


I use the income potential because that is what the OHV crowd is using as a carrot to the 
city council.

When I talk about tourism as being a draw, I'm talking about the people that go to "resort" 
towns (for lack of a better adjective) for a few things. OHV tourist towns are very hard to make 
fly. An easier sell is hiking, fishing, biking, ziplines, back country camping (yes with OHV access). 
Thing is that people coming on vacation from ??? looking for some nature experience will not 
be happy hiking a place like HV with a bunch of loud smelly OHVs buzzing all around, it 
takes away from the experience.

HV was bought, purchased by TLC and CRD to create a PARK, in the term that CRD and TLC 
state in their bylaws. This includes zero motorized vehicles. This process has been going on 
for at least 5 years in the public opinion stage with hearings and comments heard.

Broomhill may be an option if the T'sook first nations people allow it to continue after they 
take it over. They may ban mtbing or they may develop it. There's also talk of allowing OHVs 
in Broom as well.

Burntbridge is torn to hell from OHVs. I'm not sure where you're riding but the single track 
has been braided to hell in many places.

Why wouldn't I count the Metchosin area? It's a private club, all you need to do is join. Same 
with gaining access to the area past Shirley. They need to have "clubs" due to the liability 
issues and with the clubs comes waivers, and incentive to self police or else they loose 
the right to ride there.

If you look at all the youtube videos that have been posted, they are not all the Sooke hooligans...
most, but not all. There are a lot of OHV users (mostly quads) that are riding up there, tearing 
it up that don't belong to any "group".

I would like to see a OHV area just for themselves, a place I could go and take my 4x4 too. 
I think HV's time has come, and it is non-motorized.

As far as access, there are three options that I know of to get to Shields lake that don't include 
HV rd. They may not be open now, but it'll be easier to get those accesses open than HV rd.

But you like most of the OHV crowd won't be happy if you/"they" can't ride everywhere.


----------



## isleblue65 (Sep 5, 2009)

legionnair said:


> You keep saying they. Stop it they refers to all OHV's, the videos are of the "Holigans" call them by there name.
> When you say they, them it is a generalization.
> 
> Generalizations breed ignorance.


If you are such a champion for open OHV access, you should be doing everything in your power to publicly separate yourself and your riding group from groups like the Holigans. Those videos show blatant disrespect for not only the trails but the land, and some of the morons in those clips should be fined and have their vehicles impounded.

If you don't stand up against irresponsible off-roaders, whether they be mountain bikers who poach closed trails or OHVers who intentionally destroy trails and ride like as*es, then you are not doing your cause any favors. Guys like the Holigans strenthen the case for keeping OHVs out of trail systems.:nono:


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

Wow, I was riding at burntbridge last weekend on eagle heights and it is far from braided. You want to see braided then go to our Hartland it is braided to hell. The metchosen Club property is very private and very hard to join. You must be invited(sponsered by a member) and must meet certain requirements and it is for only motorcycles. I watched all those videos an the first 2 are from harbourview and the are some snippets in the others of harbour view but for the most part they are riding on old fireroads or bare rock. Yes, I have said the ones riding on tight trails are idiots for doing so. You lump me into the group by saying we are not happy unless we can riding everywhere. All I am doing is providing an option and expressing a view point. I am a SIMBS memeber, have done so much trail work you head would flip, have worked in a bikeshop and supported the local sceen. 
You also might need to do more researce on bringing in money. In the states OHV areas bring in huge amounts of mnoney. From rentals, guided tours, to RVer`s that come and play with there machines.

I still stand, your arguement that it will bring in more money being a MTB, hiking park. Is a false hope,it will just plug along under the radar as normal.

And you seem to miss the fact that I have said all along that I don`t think it will pass anyways
and If it does then I am sure you will still ride there.

I hope this little debate we are having will not jade you to much, if we ever meet cause I am sure we can see eye to eye on many other things.


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

isleblue65 said:


> If you are such a champion for open OHV access, you should be doing everything in your power to publicly separate yourself and your riding group from groups like the Holigans. Those videos show blatant disrespect for not only the trails but the land, and some of the morons in those clips should be fined and have their vehicles impounded.
> 
> If you don't stand up against irresponsible off-roaders, whether they be mountain bikers who poach closed trails or OHVers who intentionally destroy trails and ride like as*es, then you are not doing your cause any favors. Guys like the Holigans strenthen the case for keeping OHVs out of trail systems.:nono:


I agree completely


----------



## the_owl (Jul 31, 2009)

As much as there is a group of hikers trying to keep you off the trails, and a few of you MTBr's trying to keep offroaders off your trails, there is a bigger group with some lobby power trying to keep all of us off the trails.
Very counter productive to segregate groups. It will end up in trail closures as a whole. With Repuliks like Kalifornia showing precedence.
remember theres a ton of videos of Rogue MTBrs building illegal trails, riding urban stuff illegally and building 8 foot kickers.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

So what? Many people do not care to MTN bike, hike or ride horses, some are also not physically able, that is their choice and should be respected.

As for Damage to the environment it is so minimal it is ridiculous that people even bother taking it into account, Lame, move beyond that please.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> Seriously are you 10? WTF does that have to do w/ anything I've said?
> 
> There is a time and place for everything, and Harbourview isn't the place and the time had past
> for OHVs. No one is advocating getting rid of OHVs in the areas they have (except maybe the
> ...


You are missing his point, by focusing on closing certain area's you are inevitably giving more power to restrict by the government and of course it does bring on simple stoopid damage such as that of a hiker (yes there are those who complain about it) and sooner or later as what we have now, are huge battles for anyone to enjoy anything.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> ^^^^As far as a KTM, I work on boats all day, the last thing I want is to hear another motor and
> smell CO, CO2, S2O, NOx and other hydrocarbons and smoke/soot from yet another engine.
> 
> Idaho is a lot drier than it is out here in Sooke, the damage from one quad or MX trying to get up
> ...


Then feel free to invest your money and your friends with like minded interests into private land restricting OHV use, its really that simple, in the meantime, I dont want to listen to someones nagging wife or a fat chick in spandex, but hey, we are all on this rock together so get over it.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

Blurr said:


> Then feel free to invest your money and your friends with like minded interests into private land restricting OHV use, its really that simple, in the meantime, I dont want to listen to someones nagging wife or a fat chick in spandex, but hey, we are all on this rock together so get over it.


So you are seriously suggesting than all OHV's should be able to go where ever they want to, because most of them are too lazy to ride a bike? And their rights as citizens far out weigh any damage they cause?

*Lame, move beyond that please.*


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

crashtestdummy said:


> So you are seriously suggesting than all OHV's should be able to go where ever they want to, because most of them are too lazy to ride a bike? And their rights as citizens far out weigh any damage they cause?
> 
> *Lame, move beyond that please.*


1 damage caused by OHV use is negligible, and is a week and petty argument.

2. Mtn biking is not for everyone, I would hardly call anyone being outside and staying active lazy.

3. Many people do not have the physical capability to MTN bike or hike, now a moron would think that is because they are fat, that could indeed be because they are disabled in some way as well.

4. When I fought, I trained eight hours a day every single day, MTN biking was not my "activity of choice" when enjoying the outdoors, I enjoyed riding a dirtbike or tooling around a lake in a speedboat, and basically enjoying modern technology (much as lazy people who use the internet) its called "PREFERENCE" and in a free country, it should be allowed., and is your right.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Blurr said:


> You are missing his point, by focusing on closing certain area's you are inevitably giving more power to restrict by the government and of course it does bring on simple stoopid damage such as that of a hiker (yes there are those who complain about it) and sooner or later as what we have now, are huge battles for anyone to enjoy anything.


TLC did buy it specifically for hiking and through years of negotiation they and CRD have allowed 
MTBs in as well since it did fit in with their way of thinking. By having a soccer field, does that 
allow the government to close baseball fields? There used to be a time when there was no other 
place to skateboard except in malls, sidewalks and the streets. By having governments put in 
public skate parks, they have given skaters a place to go without hassle and they gave mall 
goers and pedestrians the peace and quiet of not having to deal with skaters.

By fighting the government all the time at every juncture you don't allow time for peace and 
reconciliation. By clumping two for the most part incompatible sports in the same area, you 
don't allow for peace between the two groups.

Why HV is so important is that if OHVs are allowed in the park, it would set a precedent for 
all other parks in Canada. What would stop OHVs from the west coats trail or Baden Powell or 
Fromme, or Cypress, or Seymour, etc.

Allowing for BOTH sports to exist in Sooke is my goal. By allowing OHVs in HV you then 
alienate the hikers and piss off the bikers. The ONLY winners would be the OHVs.

If we kept HV as a park with hiking and biking (which only have two trails that are common...
the rest are bike only and hike only so as minimize conflict)...AND made a deal with the district 
and forest companies ("we" meaning the city of Sooke) so open lands west of Sooke and allow 
trails to be cut for access to Shields lake and north that would eliminate the conflict between 
users (yeah, there'll still be a couple kooks riding in the park, just like at Hartland), but there 
are ways to deal with the few.

This would allow for BOTH activities to be in the same town. Economically, this would double 
our base and help boost the tourist economy enough that maybe the council could stop 
"rezoning" the small neighborhood parks so they can develop them into housing like they 
seem to be doing a lot of lately.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

Blurr said:


> 1 damage caused by OHV use is negligible, and is a week and petty argument.
> 
> 2. Mtn biking is not for everyone, I would hardly call anyone being outside and staying active lazy.
> 
> ...


1 According to whom? On the Dixie National Forest in southern Utah, it is their number one problem.

2. When you can get almost anywhere you want to by simply twisting your throttle, then yes, you are being lazy.

3. The vast majority of people I see on ATV's would be capable of getting places on foot or bike with a simple lifestyle change.

4. My mountain bike is "modern technology". I am ecstatic that there is no motor on it. When I recreate outdoors I want quiet along with my single track. ATVer's in my area have hundreds of miles of trails, but that's not enough, they also want to turn the single track into double track sand wallows.

ATV's are a scourge.

I have ATV owning friends, and most of them hate the concept of ATV's.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Blurr said:


> 1 damage caused by OHV use is negligible, and is a week and petty argument.


That's a very myopic view that demonstrates your ignorance on the subject and really negates any other points you may try to make. Responsible use is not necessarily a problem, but to state that damage caused by OHV use is neglible is ridiculous.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> TLC did buy it specifically for hiking and through years of negotiation they and CRD have allowed
> MTBs in as well since it did fit in with their way of thinking. By having a soccer field, does that
> allow the government to close baseball fields? There used to be a time when there was no other
> place to skateboard except in malls, sidewalks and the streets. By having governments put in
> ...


 And the government has no place within any of those activities, if hte mall has a problem with skateboarders then they should invest in their own park, the added bonus would be skateboard shops and possible even charging to ride the park itself. I am not one who needs nor believes the government is an answer for much at all besides the establishment of roads, trade, and basic laws. However, You being Canadian and this being a Canadian Issua I will indeed Yield



> By fighting the government all the time at every juncture you don't allow time for peace and
> reconciliation.


 There is no such thing unfortunatly, people inherently merely want to be left alone and to just enjoy life, while government seeks to control those people.



> By clumping two for the most part incompatible sports in the same area, you
> don't allow for peace between the two groups.


 I have no problem sharing an area with any other group.



> Why HV is so important is that if OHVs are allowed in the park, it would set a precedent for
> all other parks in Canada. What would stop OHVs from the west coats trail or Baden Powell or
> Fromme, or Cypress, or Seymour, etc.


 Again, I see this as a postive thing but being your country I will not press upon you.



> Allowing for BOTH sports to exist in Sooke is my goal. By allowing OHVs in HV you then
> alienate the hikers and piss off the bikers. The ONLY winners would be the OHVs.
> 
> If we kept HV as a park with hiking and biking (which only have two trails that are common...
> ...


And that is pretty fair  Although it requires more land access from doing that, In Idaho there are various trails for various types of enjoyment on the same mountain, personally that is the Ideal.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

I grew up riding dirt bike and quad trails, and I really enjoy riding them(the trails). Especially in an area with rocky terrain. I definitely think motorized trail users pose less of a threat of collision with other trail users than we do. They make enough noise, even with Project Stealth style emission noise control, to provide adequate warning to humans. I've never had a close call with someone on a motorized vehicle, despite countless encounters. I have had close calls with hikers, trail runners and other mtbers where neither of us heard or saw the other one coming. 

Problem is, the hooligans and irresponsible OHV users do, in fact, cause a huge amount of damage on dirt. Way more than the irresponsible among hikers and mtbers, and I would think more than horses as well. I have no idea what the solution to that is. Strict enforcement of law put in place to limit the damage they cause would be nice, as long as it doesn't raise my taxes, which it would.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

sean salach said:


> I grew up riding dirt bike and quad trails, and I really enjoy riding them(the trails). Especially in an area with rocky terrain. I definitely think motorized trail users pose less of a threat of collision with other trail users than we do. They make enough noise, even with Project Stealth style emission noise control, to provide adequate warning to humans. I've never had a close call with someone on a motorized vehicle, despite countless encounters. I have had close calls with hikers, trail runners and other mtbers where neither of us heard or saw the other one coming.
> 
> Problem is, the hooligans and irresponsible OHV users do, in fact, cause a huge amount of damage on dirt. Way more than the irresponsible among hikers and mtbers, and I would think more than horses as well. I have no idea what the solution to that is. Strict enforcement of law put in place to limit the damage they cause would be nice, as long as it doesn't raise my taxes, which it would.


Confrontation in a positive way, "hey man that is a sweet quad I have a blah blah at home, but look man, could you pick up after yourself and not tear up the trail so much we are running out of places to ride, and you dont want that do you?"


----------



## Bryce604 (Oct 6, 2009)

there is nothing wrong with separating uses, and I have no problem staying off 'hiking only' trails.

This is an example of dry-climate trails after quad-use, not so bad:


















This is roughly what it looks like in an island rainforest:


























this I find acceptable:


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

BumpityBump said:


> That's a very myopic view that demonstrates your ignorance on the subject and really negates any other points you may try to make. Responsible use is not necessarily a problem, but to state that damage caused by OHV use is neglible is ridiculous.


It is negligible, the amount of damage caused is so minute it really is not worth mentioning, the damage caused so you can sit on your butt and chat to me via a mined recourse is a real problem and causes real damage that has to be mitigated as best as possible with the realization that we live within a first world country and in order to enjoy those amenities we have to destroy the land, with new techniques we have can and do minimize it, but the damage is still there and very real.
Now I have worked in the septage industry for years, do you know the amount of damage being caused from medications flushed through your body? exactly, nobody is sure, what we are sure of ,is that medication will be ingested by someone else and more problems are caused, are you aware of the hepatitis problem within some of our waterways? Did you know that clams and other 'muscles" can be infected by it? 
did you know because of our intense water consumption of this country we are in serious trouble? despite a good rainfall there is a lack of aquifer in many area's which dries out your plants faster, Did you know that because of the stooopid green push for ehtenol, that also contributed to the water shortage since corn as a crop uses more water than most crops? Do you want me to go on? Or are you realizing how small your knowledge really is? Do you really still think that some friggin trails are a problem?

One other thought about trails, the wider the trail and the more OHV use the easier forest fires are controlled as they create fire lines, since the advent and ridiculous notion that roads need to be closed, we now have more problem with trying to control said fires.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Blurr said:


> It is negligible, the amount of damage caused is so minute it really is not worth mentioning, the damage caused so you can sit on your butt and chat to me via a mined recourse is a real problem and causes real damage that has to be mitigated as best as possible with the realization that we live within a first world country and in order to enjoy those amenities we have to destroy the land, with new techniques we have can and do minimize it, but the damage is still there and very real.
> Now I have worked in the septage industry for years, do you know the amount of damage being caused from medications flushed through your body? exactly, nobody is sure, what we are sure of ,is that medication will be ingested by someone else and more problems are caused, are you aware of the hepatitis problem within some of our waterways? Did you know that clams and other 'muscles" can be infected by it?
> did you know because of our intense water consumption of this country we are in serious trouble? despite a good rainfall there is a lack of aquifer in many area's which dries out your plants faster, Did you know that because of the stooopid green push for ehtenol, that also contributed to the water shortage since corn as a crop uses more water than most crops? Do you want me to go on? Or are you realizing how small your knowledge really is? Do you really still think that some friggin trails are a problem?
> 
> One other thought about trails, the wider the trail and the more OHV use the easier forest fires are controlled as they create fire lines, since the advent and ridiculous notion that roads need to be closed, we now have more problem with trying to control said fires.


I know quite a bit about water quality issues actually. I spent 8 years in the water treatment industry, 5 years managing groundwater remediation projects, 2 years writing source water assessment plans for public drinking water systems, 3 years working on a constructed wetland treating non-point source water coming off of ag fields, and 2 years on wetland delineation and mitigation projects.

The groundwater issue has been known for many years by anyone that can pick up a newspaper and read it. Check out losses in the Ogallala aquifer sometime. Look into TCE and PCE issues across the U.S. affecting drinking water resources. Yes, medications are of concern in wastewater, as are less obvious things such as caffeine. Clams and mussels are of major concern due to the fact that they dwell in benthic sediments where heavy metals and other fairly immobile toxins often end up. And yes, ethanol is a bad idea, but not just from the water consumption issue. It can also cause increased mobilization of things such as benzene and toluene once they impact groundwater should there be a fuel release.

None of that negates the fact that irresponsible use of ATVs is causing impacts to vegetation and soils, adding to increased sediment loads to fisheries, contributing to habitat fragmentation, and other issues. And accelerated erosion in desert soils from ATVs is a big issue, so it's not just moister climates that are of concern. Are there bigger problems? Sure. Does that mean it's all right to trash streams, vegetation, and soils? No. I have no problem with responsible ATV use, but there seem to be a growing number of weekend warrior types that don't really understand or appreciate the ecology of the areas they are frequenting.


----------



## the_owl (Jul 31, 2009)

irresponisble use of most any recreational activity, including cycling.. and the transporting of people and bikes to the trailheads will cause environmental damage. There isnt as big a growing number of ATV riders as there are MTB riders.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

the_owl said:


> irresponisble use of most any recreational activity, including cycling.. and the transporting of people and bikes to the trailheads will cause environmental damage. There isnt as big a growing number of ATV riders as there are MTB riders.


I don't disagree that bikes and vehicles can be of concern as well when people don't use common sense. However, there is a huge difference because:

a) transportation vehicles are on roads, not trails
b) mountain bikes don't have throttles, powerful engines, and huge tires

A group of ATVs can make a new trail in a day, one day!! I have been several miles in on single track only to see where ATVs have illegally come up side canyons and literally obliterated the original trail to the point where I couldn't find it and ended up following new ATV tracks for a mile until i realized that wasn't the trail.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

the_owl said:


> irresponisble use of most any recreational activity, including cycling.. and the transporting of people and bikes to the trailheads will cause environmental damage. There isnt as big a growing number of ATV riders as there are MTB riders.


And the transportation of ATV's, rock crawlers, dune buggies and mud buggies to the trailhead does what?

Point is that irresponsible use by certain user groups has a much more significant negative effect on the trails and the local environment than other user groups. How can that be resolved?


----------



## the_owl (Jul 31, 2009)

the point is tolerance.
You wont find many people who respect your pasttimes and opinions if you dont respect theirs.
It can be resolved easily by closing trails to everyone. But neither group wants that.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

Sweet! I'm moving to your town and taking up recreational hole digging on your favorite trails.


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

It's the rangers jurisdiction to enforce legal and PROPER trail use right? No gassing water bars, no ATVs on singletrack etc. Let's all become ranger deputies. Jk


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

BumpityBump said:


> I know quite a bit about water quality issues actually. I spent 8 years in the water treatment industry, 5 years managing groundwater remediation projects, 2 years writing source water assessment plans for public drinking water systems, 3 years working on a constructed wetland treating non-point source water coming off of ag fields, and 2 years on wetland delineation and mitigation projects.
> 
> The groundwater issue has been known for many years by anyone that can pick up a newspaper and read it. Check out losses in the Ogallala aquifer sometime. Look into TCE and PCE issues across the U.S. affecting drinking water resources. Yes, medications are of concern in wastewater, as are less obvious things such as caffeine. Clams and mussels are of major concern due to the fact that they dwell in benthic sediments where heavy metals and other fairly immobile toxins often end up. And yes, ethanol is a bad idea, but not just from the water consumption issue. It can also cause increased mobilization of things such as benzene and toluene once they impact groundwater should there be a fuel release.


 good now we are getting someplace.



> None of that negates the fact that irresponsible use of ATVs is causing impacts to vegetation and soils, adding to increased sediment loads to fisheries, contributing to habitat fragmentation, and other issues. And accelerated erosion in desert soils from ATVs is a big issue, so it's not just moister climates that are of concern. Are there bigger problems? Sure. Does that mean it's all right to trash streams, vegetation, and soils? No. I have no problem with responsible ATV use, but there seem to be a growing number of weekend warrior types that don't really understand or appreciate the ecology of the areas they are frequenting.


Again, negligible, to assume we will have no impact on our environment is ridiculous at best, to assume that the small amount caused from OHV tail usage is anything to worry about is again, ridiculous, what mother nature does in one storm makes what people do in a year absolutely nothing. Im not even remotely worried about it. Garbage? I will agree with everyone on that, pack it in, pack it out, and I usually pack out way more than I bring in.


----------



## the_owl (Jul 31, 2009)

sean salach said:


> Sweet! I'm moving to your town and taking up recreational hole digging on your favorite trails.


Just to be clear sean, since your sport may have less impact on the planet, you have a sense of entitlement?
Or is it that his recreation impedes on your happiness?
Just trying to figure out where your shooting from.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

the_owl said:


> Just to be clear sean, since your sport may have less impact on the planet, you have a sense of entitlement?
> Or is it that his recreation impedes on your happiness?
> Just trying to figure out where your shooting from.


I'm of the opinion that trail use should be regulated by impact. Less impact, more access. Yes, that is, technically, a sense of entitlement.

Noone is impeding on my happiness yet. When they do, I'll let them know it. :thumbsup:

Reading at least the previous page of this thread would let you know where I'm shooting from. See quote below:



sean salach said:


> *I grew up riding dirt bike and quad trails, and I really enjoy riding them(the trails). Especially in an area with rocky terrain. I definitely think motorized trail users pose less of a threat of collision with other trail users than we do. They make enough noise, even with Project Stealth style emission noise control, to provide adequate warning to humans. I've never had a close call with someone on a motorized vehicle, despite countless encounters.* I have had close calls with hikers, trail runners and other mtbers where neither of us heard or saw the other one coming.
> 
> Problem is, the hooligans and irresponsible OHV users do, in fact, cause a huge amount of damage on dirt. Way more than the irresponsible among hikers and mtbers, and I would think more than horses as well. I have no idea what the solution to that is. Strict enforcement of law put in place to limit the damage they cause would be nice, as long as it doesn't raise my taxes, which it would.


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

sean salach said:


> And the transportation of ATV's, rock crawlers, dune buggies and mud buggies to the trailhead does what?
> 
> Point is that irresponsible use by certain user groups has a much more significant negative effect on the trails and the local environment than other user groups. How can that be resolved?


See this is the kind of debating that needs to happen. I think Harbour View or a place similar made into a Multi-use trail system with clearly marked trails for each user. With a committee in place with equal voice from each user on said committee. If there is damage by one user to another users trail or more trail building with out permission. then it can be brought up to the committee and resolution can happen. Also trail clean ups and maintenance will be done by all users ( ie quadders, MTB, hikers and Motorbikers) will help maintain each others trails so they can see what the other users like and dont like for trail systems.

I know it seems like a crazy idea but without this kind of multi-use system we will never see how the other user thinks and show them how we think.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2010)

You guys are really serious in here eh? We should all sit back and burn one, then maybe we can all agree and quit the bickering.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Blurr said:


> good now we are getting someplace.
> 
> Again, negligible, to assume we will have no impact on our environment is ridiculous at best, to assume that the small amount caused from OHV tail usage is anything to worry about is again, ridiculous, what mother nature does in one storm makes what people do in a year absolutely nothing. Im not even remotely worried about it. Garbage? I will agree with everyone on that, pack it in, pack it out, and I usually pack out way more than I bring in.


Often the reason storms have such great impact is due to negligence via such things as the very issues with ATVs that we are discussing. Wetlands and riparian systems are great buffering, filtering, and energy dissipating systems. But when natural stability of those systems, associated stream bed structures (even ephemeral channels), and upland areas adjoing them are trashed it can have a huge impact. Especially when you start adding up the cumulative effects. It's also often easy to avoid.

As I said earlier, there are certainly other issues, urbanization in general for example, but sometimes very ecologically important headwater streams are being impacted that would not have been otherwise. This can sometimes affect critical spawning habitat for aquatic organisms that wouldn't have been affected by general human activity such as urbanization. These areas are often much more stable than lower reaches where bigger impacts have already been seen.

You remind me of the guy I once met who wasn't concerned about dumping large drums of banned pesticides in the ditch out back "because it's mostly water anyway". I replied that since it was mostly water, maybe he should take a swig. The story relates because it gets to the "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" notion.


----------



## the_owl (Jul 31, 2009)

sean salach said:


> I'm of the opinion that trail use should be regulated by impact. Less impact, more access. Yes, that is, technically, a sense of entitlement.
> 
> Noone is impeding on my happiness yet. When they do, I'll let them know it. :thumbsup:
> 
> Reading at least the previous page of this thread would let you know where I'm shooting from. See quote below:


Well theres a bigger group that wants Bikers and OHV users off the trails, and their sense of entitlement is currently winning. They think knobby prints of any kind in their mud is a crime against mother earth. What would you say to them?


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

the_owl said:


> Well theres a bigger group that wants Bikers and OHV users off the trails, and their sense of entitlement is currently winning. They think knobby prints of any kind in their mud is a crime against mother earth. What would you say to them?


If you're talking about hikers, they don't "think knobby prints of any kind in their mud is a crime against mother earth.", because most of them wear shoes. With a tread. With knobs on them. The notion that mountain bikes cause more damage than hikers is being shot down little by little. The biggest argument they have in their favor is the user conflict risk that our speed and silence pose, which is a very valid concern. I don't think mountain bikes should have access to all trails. I think the order of access limitation should be something to the effect of: hiking<-mtbing and trail running<-horses, recreational hole digging and ohv's. If you're going to keep trying to change the topic I'm going to stop responding.


----------



## the_owl (Jul 31, 2009)

Ahh well they arent called hikers where im from. theyre called environmental terrorists.
Walking has nothing to do with the agenda.
The same people who want to pave pikes peak


sean salach said:


> If you're talking about hikers, they don't "think knobby prints of any kind in their mud is a crime against mother earth.", because most of them wear shoes. With a tread. With knobs on them. The notion that mountain bikes cause more damage than hikers is being shot down little by little. The biggest argument they have in their favor is the user conflict risk that our speed and silence pose, which is a very valid concern. I don't think mountain bikes should have access to all trails. I think the order of access limitation should be something to the effect of: hiking<-mtbing and trail running<-horses, recreational hole digging and ohv's. If you're going to keep trying to change the topic I'm going to stop responding.


----------



## zadey1234 (May 7, 2007)

I MTB, dirtbike, quad, trike(honda atc). I live in the city, so my MTBing sticks to the city for now(no money at 16 to go anywhere, haha). If I wanna go play on bigger toys, head out to my granpa's farm and hit the transcanada trails. I srsly f*cking hate it how these guys go out, by the biggest freaking quad, and go spin in the bogs. My dad tells me stories from when he always rode out there. 250 was big, now 800 is MASSIVE. He said before it was crossing and getting through a mud pit to get to all the nice trails. Now...a lot of these guys...they go out just to see how stuck they get.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

zadey1234 said:


> I MTB, dirtbike, quad, trike(honda atc). I live in the city, so my MTBing sticks to the city for now(no money at 16 to go anywhere, haha). If I wanna go play on bigger toys, head out to my granpa's farm and hit the transcanada trails. I srsly f*cking hate it how these guys go out, by the biggest freaking quad, and go spin in the bogs. My dad tells me stories from when he always rode out there. 250 was big, now 800 is MASSIVE. He said before it was crossing and getting through a mud pit to get to all the nice trails. Now...a lot of these guys...they go out just to see how stuck they get.


Yes because its fun, and get this, the animal kingdom does it too
Everything from Elephants, to Elk enjoy playing in the mud, but if a human does it, OHH NOOOO's


----------



## cdnblur (Apr 26, 2008)

Blurr;
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Elephants and elk don't use motors, at least not around where i live.
It's hardly a comparison in terms of disturbance of the ground and water, unless the OHV riders got off their machines and jumped around in the mud to see how stuck they could get...then you might have a valid argument that humans jumping around in the mud cause less damage than elephants do! 
Good try, though; the youtube vid is pretty funny!


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

cdnblur said:


> Blurr;
> That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Elephants and elk don't use motors, at least not around where i live.
> It's hardly a comparison in terms of disturbance of the ground and water, unless the OHV riders got off their machines and jumped around in the mud to see how stuck they could get...then you might have a valid argument that humans jumping around in the mud cause less damage than elephants do!
> Good try, though; the youtube vid is pretty funny!


Actually no, consider the weight of An elephant up to 15000 lbs, despite all the hype here, they are viewed as a real problem in Africa, the damage they cause is really amazing, far more than Jimbob and crew could dream of spinning out in a bog.
We like animals have to exist, and we will impact our environent, in extreme cases such as sanitation, mining, ect it should be mitigated, however we also need to have fun, have a release and screw conforming from time to time.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Blurr said:


> Actually no, consider the weight of An elephant up to 15000 lbs, despite all the hype here, they are viewed as a real problem in Africa, the damage they cause is really amazing, far more than Jimbob and crew could dream of spinning out in a bog.
> We like animals have to exist, and we will impact our environent, in extreme cases such as sanitation, mining, ect it should be mitigated, however we also need to have fun, have a release and screw conforming from time to time.


Ok since just saying it dozens of times doesn't seem to be working, I'll say it really loud.

NO ONE WANTS TO STOP OHVS IN SOOKE, WE JUST WANT ONE PLACE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THEM.

Why is that so ****ing hard to understand? Even the motorcycle club that has land west of here 
has issues with quads and 4X4's: http://bcmountainvoip.com/twiki/bin/view/VIORC/TanskyMain



> his area is managed by the Victoria Motorcycle Club with permission from the BC Provincial government for off-road motorcycle use. The trails are primarily single-track, with very few of the main skid roads usable by quads. If you can't negotiate the trails because of your vehicle width, do not open the single track into a double track, or double track into a freeway. This ruins the trails for their intended use. We have intentionally kept the wider skid roads narrow and flowing side to side to keep the speeds down and interest up. Don't remake them into freeways.
> 
> 4WDs: This area really has no good 4Wheeling. The terrain is mostly rolling, with very little rock. Please do not trash the trails trying to make it into what it isn't. If you have any questions about where else to explore with your 4 wheel drive, please email Andy James (VMC member and 4WD enthusiast). He has many areas to suggest for great 4Wheeling.


Like they say on their site, there are lots of other 4x4 places to go and they will point you 
to them. 
Mountain bikers can't say the same thing. Why should the motorcyles be allowed to have their 
own place that is GOVERNMENT sponsored with grants (I think it was $400,000 last year) 
for trail work and we have to volunteer to keep a place that will get ruined by quads every time 
we do work?

You guys are talking about elephants and sanitation. Start your own thread, this has nothing 
to do with my plea. I'm not talking about eliminating OHVs, just not in the ONE park.

It's real simple...if you want to help look at the OP and write the councilors and such, if you 
don't have the energy to do that sign our petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/not4ohv/petition.html

Otherwise, don't. If you are in favor of the OHVs then go to their FB site and sign up and support 
them.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> Ok since just saying it dozens of times doesn't seem to be working, I'll say it really loud.
> 
> NO ONE WANTS TO STOP OHVS IN SOOKE, WE JUST WANT ONE PLACE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THEM.


 You want you want



> Why is that so ****ing hard to understand? Even the motorcycle club that has land west of here
> has issues with quads and 4X4's: http://bcmountainvoip.com/twiki/bin/view/VIORC/TanskyMain


 What surprise a club who is biased against another club? Say it isnt so, this is the exact problem of argument at hand, each group thinks they are more special than the other.



> Like they say on their site, there are lots of other 4x4 places to go and they will point you
> to them.
> Mountain bikers can't say the same thing. Why should the motorcyles be allowed to have their
> own place that is GOVERNMENT sponsored with grants (I think it was $400,000 last year)
> ...


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

This is why I think a multi-use area would be great get the different users together building each others trails. Learning about the other users needs and wants. If this cross over never happens then then the bickering and group seperation will continue. All our voices together is better than apart.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

legionnair said:


> This is why I think a multi-use area would be great get the different users together building each others trails. Learning about the other users needs and wants. If this cross over never happens then then the bickering and group seperation will continue. All our voices together is better than apart.


If HV is opened to OHVs then the MTBers will be even more pissed off as their hard work will 
be destroyed in a day with one quad on their trail. The OHVs have nothing to loose since a MTB 
or hiker will not even be noticed on a OHV trail.

If it opened up this is what will happen:

1) The hiker will leave and there will be no growth in hiking recreation there as was the CRD 
plan. IF the bikers stay they will build trails that have TTF's with large stunts with gaps and 
drops that will limit the amount of people that can ride there so the MTB crowd will diminish.

2) The hikers AND MTBers will leave.

The end result will be yet one more place that is for OHVs and one less place that is conducive to 
MTBing, hiking, horse riding and dog walking.

It would be the same if some asshats got jet skis and started towing in at Sombrio or Jordan River.

It's a real shame, because with the thinking of Terrance and the present Sooke council/mayor 
Sooke will not pull out of it's slump, and will continue it's downward trend towards being another 
Luxton. We are on the verge of something really good for Sooke (not just the park), and if 
Sooke can become enlightened enough, we could become like Hanalei, or Lahaina, two places 
that have the lowest unemployment in the US and some of the highest standards of living. 
Taking away recreation for the majority of tourists (hiking, biking, horse back riding tours, back country 
fishing, etc) will limit the growth potential and real money and income for all. This vision would 
include OHVs in more secluded areas where the noise and pollution won't bother the mainstream.

With the hotel opening up and more in the works, Sooke could have:
SCUBA
Fresh AND Saltwater fishing
Hiking (more than just the west coast trail)
Biking (more than just the Galloping Goose) 
OHVs 
Zip lines 
Outback trekking (with the addition of small sleepover cabins like Mt Hood and all over NZ) 
...and more.

Blurr, you're so far out there and single/closed minded, and instead of reading and understanding 
what we are trying to say you seem to already "know" through osmosis where we're coming 
from. 
This was not a "discussion" but a plea for help. If you don't want to help, go to Terrances 
facebook page (I posted it in the original post) and join his club.


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

> are you a prissy that needs well groomed trails or something? Are you saying quad clubs do not maintain? lol :nono:


Are you a prissy that needs a quad?


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

This was not a "discussion" but a plea for help. If you don't want to help, go to Terrances 
facebook page (I posted it in the original post) and join his club.[/QUOTE]

It is a plea but in posting it in the forums it is also up for discussion, If you dont like discussing the topic then stop reading. It's this closed mindset that keeps the different user groups fighting and not joining together for a louder voice against closing areas for everyone.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

legionnair said:


> This was not a "discussion" but a plea for help. If you don't want to help, go to Terrances
> facebook page (I posted it in the original post) and join his club.


It is a plea but in posting it in the forums it is also up for discussion, If you dont like discussing the topic then stop reading. It's this closed mindset that keeps the different user groups fighting and not joining together for a louder voice against closing areas for everyone.[/QUOTE]

I'm getting frustrated by inane comments by people like Blurr...all the other discussion is just a 
big circle jerk of opinions. My idea wouldn't have different groups fighting but living in peace 
able to do their respective sports without interference and oppression of other sports ruining 
what is essential to each others sport. I'm sure that the 4x4's and quads would be pretty pissed 
off if we went into an area they recreate in and built MTB TTF's like wooden structures and such...no?


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

^^^ This might be before you but when Millstream rd was around it had a Mixed use. Stunts were being built, cross country racces were held, Motorbikes rode and had enduro races, and 4x4's had runs. It worked very well and was smaller than Harbour View. Everyone stuck to there areas. This area was lost because we were unorganized and only one of our voices was not loud enough to stop the sale to bear MTN. But if we had banded together it might have been another story.

Burntbridge is mainly OHV use but everytime I am out there, I see MTB, Quads, dirtbikes, and hikers/dog walkers. Everyone understands it is multi-use and expects it. Everyone is polite and open to conversation. I was speaking with some Trials Motorcycles guys about some stunts being built on a trail called Billy Goat a main trail up the mount for them, they did not seem to care they said there is lots of other trails and I quote "we have motors we can go out of the way and it does not bother us". 

I can see you have a great vision for Sooke and I hope it happens. I see you are open to areas for OHV's Great. I just want you to see there is a positive thing from having a Multi-use area where every user helps build/maintain the trails. This will bring everyone together giving us a very powerful voice.

I inturn see your point you want quiet place to ride, and a place for trail expansion for MTB crowd(me included).


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

legionnair said:


> I can see you have a great vision for Sooke and I hope it happens. I see you are open to areas for OHV's Great. I just want you to see there is a positive thing from having a Multi-use area where every user helps build/maintain the trails. This will bring everyone together giving us a very powerful voice.
> 
> I inturn see your point you want quiet place to ride, and a place for trail expansion for MTB crowd(me included).


I wouldn't mind a multi-use, I'm not sure if I'd be into hiking around motorized vehicles...it's kinda 
what's the point for me, but w/e. I'd like to see a area that I can shuttle like Prevost. Something 
like that where we could make stunts and being a shuttle, the vehicles wouldn't be as much of 
a issue as long as we could build trails that suits each of our respective sports.

Again though, I don't see HV as being that place.


----------



## WETYC... (Mar 27, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> The OHV people argue that they have no place to ride...not true, they have WAY more places to OHV than we do to ride a bike or hike.


For some historical perspective:

From the mid 90s through 2000, I rode the ferry over several times a year to attend both informal and progressively larger/more organized 4x4 events near Shields Lake. Back then, it was "the Whistler" of B.C. 4x4 areas. Nowhere in the lower mainland/island offered the same quality and quantity of trails. I've 4x4'd all over B.C., parts of western AB, Washington, Alaska, the Rubicon Trail, the Black Hills of South Dakota, lots of southern Utah (including Moab) and Harbourview was right up there in my book.

Even 10 years later, there has still been no equivalent area found on the Island/in the lower mainland.


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> I wouldn't mind a multi-use, I'm not sure if I'd be into hiking around motorized vehicles...it's kinda
> what's the point for me, but w/e. I'd like to see a area that I can shuttle like Prevost. Something
> like that where we could make stunts and being a shuttle, the vehicles wouldn't be as much of
> a issue as long as we could build trails that suits each of our respective sports.
> ...


I believe this push from the OHVer's is brought on by BILL 30 which is trying to close backcountry access for them and us. I bet if Bill 30 did not come out you would not have this fight over harbour View.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> If HV is opened to OHVs then the MTBers will be even more pissed off as their hard work will
> be destroyed in a day with one quad on their trail. The OHVs have nothing to loose since a MTB
> or hiker will not even be noticed on a OHV trail.
> 
> ...


Its not through osmosis, its because I have a diverse background and spent most of my life in the Pintler Wilderness area in Montana, Mostly on horseback, so I have heard these arguments all before since I was a child, my father was avid anti motor in those area's and "horses were the only way to go" He changed his tune when he got older, no longer could wrangle horses and a fourwheeler was really his only option to enjoy the outdoors.
Since I also got a dirtbike at about six, I understood that end of it as well, different strokes for different folks, its really that simple. Now I get to sit and watch land closed off at breakneck speeds using any argument they can come up with to merely justify why their activity is better than the other guys, ITS NOT.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

BumpityBump said:


> Often the reason storms have such great impact is due to negligence via such things as the very issues with ATVs that we are discussing. Wetlands and riparian systems are great buffering, filtering, and energy dissipating systems. But when natural stability of those systems, associated stream bed structures (even ephemeral channels), and upland areas adjoing them are trashed it can have a huge impact. Especially when you start adding up the cumulative effects. It's also often easy to avoid.
> 
> As I said earlier, there are certainly other issues, urbanization in general for example, but sometimes very ecologically important headwater streams are being impacted that would not have been otherwise. This can sometimes affect critical spawning habitat for aquatic organisms that wouldn't have been affected by general human activity such as urbanization. These areas are often much more stable than lower reaches where bigger impacts have already been seen.


 Folly argument, you are talking about mild disturbances that the Fish will deal with anyhow, be it a herd of elk crossing, cattle, flood or anything of the like. unforunatly most people in this country are brought up brainwashed that man is evil and anything he does is wrong.



> You remind me of the guy I once met who wasn't concerned about dumping large drums of banned pesticides in the ditch out back "because it's mostly water anyway". I replied that since it was mostly water, maybe he should take a swig. The story relates because it gets to the "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" notion.


And there you go, totally irrational argument, but since you brought it up, care to tell me how much area is destroyed for mined resources? I see nobody has bothered addressing that "footprint" 
So its very simple, while ya'll will sit and talk bout where you can take your toys, and boo hoo when someone rode a fourwheeler across a stream, then in the next thread "Oh hey check out the new components I just bought, ohh I went and ate all you can eat at red lobster, ohhh hell Im getting a NEW MTN BIKE!!!

lol to funny


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

legionnair said:


> I believe this push from the OHVer's is brought on by BILL 30 which is trying to close backcountry access for them and us. I bet if Bill 30 did not come out you would not have this fight over harbour View.


Link to bill?

I think the issue is that Sooke council has promised OHVs would be included in the Sooke 
planning process. Thing is that this land is now owned an entity other than Sooke. It was purchased 
by TLC with help from the Federal government and CRD...ALL of which do not allow motorized 
vehicles on their properties. This is a process that has been going on for over 10 years. Sooke 
district had ample opportunity to shut this down and yet they gave their blessing. The district 
of Sooke has no altruistic motives in opening the new park to OHVs. If we're being honest 
with ourselves, the district of Sooke wants to keep this land from becoming a park so that 
they can easily "rezone" (like they have been doing with lots of other land) for development. 
It's that simple. Don't be fooled that if they open this land to OHVs that the OHVs will have it 
for more than 10-20 years.

What the OHV crowd is doing right now is cutting off their noses to spite their face. If they 
are successful in turning this around, they will have made enemies of hikers, bikers and equestrians 
that were just looking for a quiet place to go. When Sooke decides to rezone HV in 10-20 years, and the OHVs are screaming about loss of land/wilderness, or when "they" 
decide that HV should be the ONLY place for them... they will be a lone voice. 
Right now, there is a rather large group of us that are more than happy to encourage Sooke 
to develop OHV lands from it's existing district lands.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Blurr said:


> Folly argument, you are talking about mild disturbances that the Fish will deal with anyhow, be it a herd of elk crossing, cattle, flood or anything of the like. unforunatly most people in this country are brought up brainwashed that man is evil and anything he does is wrong.
> 
> And there you go, totally irrational argument, but since you brought it up, care to tell me how much area is destroyed for mined resources? I see nobody has bothered addressing that "footprint"
> So its very simple, while ya'll will sit and talk bout where you can take your toys, and boo hoo when someone rode a fourwheeler across a stream, then in the next thread "Oh hey check out the new components I just bought, ohh I went and ate all you can eat at red lobster, ohhh hell Im getting a NEW MTN BIKE!!!
> ...


The mining footprint argument is irrelevant. Because one impact is larger doesn't make the next impact okay. ATV use is an issue and obviously a much bigger one than you care to admit or understand. There are reams of empirical data out there that point to ATVs being a problem, it's not brainwashing. Elk crossing a stream is a much different situation than repeated churning of soils by motors and rubber tires in an irresponsible manner. Nobody has boo hoo'd crossing a stream with a 4 wheeler, it's the irresponsible use that is the problem. You continue to propigate the notion that we should have the right to do whatever we want on ATVs due to the negligible environmental repercussions. That is what I am refuting, not responsible use.

I have spent a lot of time in the western mountains where there are a LOT of elk. I have hiked through really nice meadows laced with streams that have seen years of elk movement and the soils and vegetation have held up fine. However these are saturated soils containing primarily soft herbaceous vegetation, one day with some ATV hooligans would damage those meadows for years to come.

It's blatantly obvious you don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about and we have drifted too far off topic from the OP's original request.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

BumpityBump said:


> The mining footprint argument is irrelevant. Because one impact is larger doesn't make the next impact okay. ATV use is an issue and obviously a much bigger one than you care to admit or understand. There are reams of empirical data out there that point to ATVs being a problem, it's not brainwashing. Elk crossing a stream is a much different situation than repeated churning of soils by motors and rubber tires in an irresponsible manner. Nobody has boo hoo'd crossing a stream with a 4 wheeler, it's the irresponsible use that is the problem. You continue to propigate the notion that we should have the right to do whatever we want on ATVs due to the negligible environmental repercussions. That is what I am refuting, not responsible use.
> 
> I have spent a lot of time in the western mountains where there are a LOT of elk. I have hiked through really nice meadows laced with streams that have seen years of elk movement and the soils and vegetation have held up fine. However these are saturated soils containing primarily soft herbaceous vegetation, one day with some ATV hooligans would damage those meadows for years to come.
> 
> It's blatantly obvious you don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about and we have drifted too far off topic from the OP's original request.


At no place did I say OHVs should be able to ride absolutely anywhere, that is what trails are for, let em have fun. The more you restrict, the more you will create a problem with people wanting to destroy an area in protest. Like I said, its perfectly easy to share a mountain together via multiple trail systems or even shared.
Now again, as I stated earlier, if you are talking private land then It is none of anyone's business save the land owner how that land will be used.

And again, Mining is relevant because it is a byproduct of our very existence on this planet, and the absolute hypocrisy of people failing to admit it, is beyond irritating


----------



## transient (May 6, 2006)

I can't believe I am still reading this thread.

I signed both petitions on the SIMBS site, they have done so much for MTB in victoria over the years, if they are behind this, I am with them. 

The more I think about it, the better of HV would be if it was non-motorized only. Hopefully it goes ahead and the CRD has the balls to provide some sort of enforcement, otherwise it will be no different than it is now.

I started thinking about why multi-use worked in other areas such as Millstream and it boiled down to access and consequences. All of those spots were pretty hard to access in a 4x4 for the terrain that you were getting and in general, there were less asshats. Most of it was private property and the presence of motorized vehicles was mildly tolerated, but if there was too much douche baggery going on you could bet on running into an angry land owner with a shotgun. I'm not sure which of the 'Generation Me' groups started this destruction for destructions sake attitude, but the mouth breathing inbreeders doing it need to be sterilized, I don't want to be out in the woods and feel like I am surrounded by the same people that I would be if I was at Walmart on a saturday.. 

While I can appreciate all of the input from our friends south of the border, things here are a lot different. We don't face the same land use issues for the most part and how they are dealt with tends to be a lot different. The Victoria area and Vancouver have some unique issues, but else where in the province, you can ride almost anywhere you want. Overall, most areas are self policing, there are even less resources to enforce regulations than you have. To add to that, unless you are from Oregon, the run-off and erosion issues we face are pretty unique. Most of our little streams feed into salmon bearing rivers, so while a 'herd of elk' crossing a creek may not seem like a big deal, 20 ATVs crossing on a saturday can have a serious impact on sedimentation in rivers and streams that are already in trouble. And no, the fish can't 'just deal with it' because it is part of nature. Blurr, all of the things you list can have very real consequences depending on the timing of the event. 

There are a lot of circular arguments going on in this thread, by continuing those arguments, those with no direct interest in the area really aren't helping things move anywhere.


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

there is alot of that pop up for Bill 30

here is just one: http://www.resourceroadsbc.com/

there are more (alot more) I just heard about this yesterday in passing from a friend. Still need to do more digging


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

legionnair said:


> there is alot of that pop up for Bill 30
> 
> here is just one: http://www.resourceroadsbc.com/
> 
> there are more (alot more) I just heard about this yesterday in passing from a friend. Still need to do more digging


https://leg.bc.ca/38th4th/1st_read/gov30-1.htm

This bill was introduced in 2008, what has happened to it since (it is 2 years old)? Was it passed 
or was it shot down?

EDIT:
So I just quickly read the bill. This bills purpose is to permit roads to certain persons:


> (a) the person is the government,
> 
> (b) the authority has given its prior written authorization to the creation,
> 
> ...


This bill ensures that the above people/organizations (including government) need to go through a process 
to build roads, and it shows the process for maintaining, modifying and the materials that are to be used in 
building a road.

It covers the designations of roads whether they be high use or not, and it ensures the right of a officer to 
check vehicles driving on these roads for safety violations (just like they can in a mall parking lot).

It goes on to say that the above people/organizations conduct themselves in a safe manner.

This law just makes sure that you don't have land owners (be it private or government) creating roads without 
the consent of the crown. This ensures you don't have roads being created that could then collapse and cause 
massive amounts of damage. *This type of thing occurred on Kauai about 7-8 years ago. A land owner (Phleuger) 
had created a road. He didn't get a permit and the road was contravening proper road construction. The amount 
of run-off that was created during a storm back then sent enough silt to cover, choke and kill a section of reef on 
the east side that was over 2 miles long. The mud wash was clearly visible from satellites. It destroyed several 
homes and later led to more homes being abandoned as well as a paved access road that was destroyed leaving 
a few dozen people stranded*

I see nothing in this bill that takes use rights away from landowners, unless they are contravening safety, or other 
laws. So...the government can't say that WFP can't have people driving quads on their back roads. It does say 
that they can't create new roads without application of permits.

At least that's how I read it. :/


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

Blurr said:


> ....The more you restrict, the more you will create a problem with people wanting to destroy an area in protest.


Typical ohv, atv, quad type thinking.
Mt bikers don't think this way, equestrians don't think this way, hikers don't think this way.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

Shelbak73 said:


> Typical ohv, atv, quad type thinking.
> Mt bikers don't think this way, equestrians don't think this way, hikers don't think this way.


Oh really? When stupid hikers wreck my mountain biking trails, I just make more trails (even more sturdy) to avenge the one they mess up. So actually it depends on what type of person you are. Blurr has a point.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

ajd245246 said:


> Oh really? When stupid hikers wreck my mountain biking trails, I just make more trails (even more sturdy) to avenge the one they mess up. So actually it depends on what type of person you are. *Blurr has a point*.


That there are selfish idiots among both mountain bikers and the OHV crowd?


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

sean salach said:


> That there are selfish idiots among both mountain bikers and the OHV crowd?


 No, but if you push them away too harshly they are going to like the rules even less than they did before. Thus when they do ride illegally they won't stop to consider how much trail damage they are doing.


----------



## legionnair (Feb 1, 2009)

^^^^ I read it and you have sumed it up. But this bill 30 did waken people up and I think it was the starting off point for the OHVer's trying to get in to HV.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

legionnair said:


> ^^^^ I read it and you have sumed it up. But this bill 30 did waken people up and I think it was the starting off point for the OHVer's trying to get in to HV.


Unfortunately it's like the republicans down south, they read something and twist it to their 
agenda even though the facts don't match the reality. The same thing is happening with Terrance 
Martin, he's twisting facts, exaggerating others and the lies he's making up get so buried in the 
half truths that they are taken as fact by the people that want so much to believe it. It all reminds me of that south park episode...(let me try and find it)...I think this sums things up:






and






They took our trails...

Dey tk ur trls...

D' tk R drrrrls.!!!


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Shelbak73 said:


> Typical ohv, atv, quad type thinking.
> Mt bikers don't think this way, equestrians don't think this way, hikers don't think this way.


 Everyone thinks that way, just because you throw a motor on something does not automatically mean human beings somehow change.

I always loved the "nature loving hikers" especially the ones who **** right next to a trail, hell, who **** on the trail, I especially love those "nature loving hikers" who refuse to **** in an outhouse cause it might smell more, again, better to **** next to the trail to protest. And even better, are those hikers who **** around an outhouse in protest, or vandalise the outhouse because "it is not astetically appealing to the environment"


----------



## the_owl (Jul 31, 2009)

republicans down south or midwest democrats?
please...


kauaibullit said:


> Unfortunately it's like the republicans down south, they read something and twist it to their
> agenda even though the facts don't match the reality. The same thing is happening with Terrance
> Martin, he's twisting facts, exaggerating others and the lies he's making up get so buried in the
> half truths that they are taken as fact by the people that want so much to believe it. It all reminds me of that south park episode...(let me try and find it)...I think this sums things up:
> ...


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Blurr said:


> Everyone thinks that way, just because you throw a motor on something does not automatically mean human beings somehow change.
> 
> I always loved the "nature loving hikers" especially the ones who **** right next to a trail, hell, who **** on the trail, I especially love those "nature loving hikers" who refuse to **** in an outhouse cause it might smell more, again, better to **** next to the trail to protest. And even better, are those hikers who **** around an outhouse in protest, or vandalise the outhouse because "it is not astetically appealing to the environment"


Really? I have hiked, skied, and mtn biked on trails all over the west and I have _never_ seen this. Where do you see humans taking a crap in the middle of a trail?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

zrm said:


> Really? I have hiked, skied, and mtn biked on trails all over the west and I have _never_ seen this. Where do you see humans taking a crap in the middle of a trail?


Call your local forest circus and ask em, Its a real problem an as a contractor I have been paid from various districts to install newer more astetically pleasing outhouses because the hikers in the area again, refused to use the old wooden ones so would **** right outside.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

zrm said:


> Really? I have hiked, skied, and mtn biked on trails all over the west and I have _never_ seen this. Where do you see humans taking a crap in the middle of a trail?


I have had the misfortune of coming upon 3 different people crapping next to the trail around Navajo Lake in SW Utah. All 3 were fisherman (let's bash on them also).


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Blurr said:


> Call your local forest circus and ask em, Its a real problem an as a contractor I have been paid from various districts to install newer more astetically pleasing outhouses because the hikers in the area again, refused to use the old wooden ones so would **** right outside.


Well, since I'm on a couple adopt a trail crews, serve on the boards of a couple groups that work closely with the forest service and do a lot of trail work, and am the administrator of a term special use permit, I'd say I'm pretty familiar with the trail issues where I live and have paid close attention to issues in other places. I haven't heard of a lot of talk of people crapping in the middle of trails (their dogs might be another story, but thankfully, more and more people are carrying WAG bags with them) or clamouring for new toilet facilities at trailheads (although certainly, at those heavily used trailheads that have pit toilets, maintenance is required and new SST standard toilets are a lot easier to clean and pump, as well as have vaults that don't leak and pollute ground water).

Maybe there's something in the water, food supply, or air where you're from that encourages clueless behavior.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

the_owl said:


> republicans down south or midwest democrats?
> please...


Dude, "they" are shutting down _*all*_ your trails to everything but barefoot, slow hiking. I know it's true because i read it on the internet. Get really pissed off and spread the news.


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

Blurr said:


> Everyone thinks that way, just because you throw a motor on something does not automatically mean human beings somehow change.
> 
> I always loved the "nature loving hikers" especially the ones who **** right next to a trail, hell, who **** on the trail, I especially love those "nature loving hikers" who refuse to **** in an outhouse cause it might smell more, again, better to **** next to the trail to protest. And even better, are those hikers who **** around an outhouse in protest, or vandalise the outhouse because "it is not astetically appealing to the environment"


Never happens here, something in the air where you live. I agree.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

I've also never heard of that being a problem. If workers are finding human waste "around" outhouses instead of in, then it's one of two problems: Maintenance of the outhouse or insufficient facilities for the amount of 'traffic'.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

sean salach said:


> I've also never heard of that being a problem. If workers are finding human waste "around" outhouses instead of in, then it's one of two problems: Maintenance of the outhouse or insufficient facilities for the amount of 'traffic'.


Yea, its hard to wait for the last person to get done taking a dump. Again, feel free to pick up the phone and call your forest circus and ask em. I mean, god forbid any of you should educate yourself, would be absolutely shocking to say the least.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Blurr said:


> Yea, its hard to wait for the last person to get done taking a dump. Again, feel free to pick up the phone and call your forest circus and ask em. I mean, god forbid any of you should educate yourself, would be absolutely shocking to say the least.


Done, and they looked at me like I was from Mars...it must be a Am'rcan thing.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

Blurr said:


> I mean, god forbid any of you should educate yourself, would be absolutely shocking to say the least.


Oh, the irony.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

kauaibullit said:


> Done, and they looked at me like I was from Mars...it must be a Am'rcan thing.


I couldn't imagine anyone looking at you with a straight face if you walked up to them and asked them if they're having a problem with protest poo around their outhouse....


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

sean salach said:


> I couldn't imagine anyone looking at you with a straight face if you walked up to them and asked them if they're having a problem with protest poo around their outhouse....


Well, I figured there a few ******** and hillbillies around here so and what with the guy who 
was screwing a horse up the road here there's be a chance. I will say I have **** in the woods 
but it was no where near the trail and pretty far from any facilities.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

crashtestdummy said:


> Oh, the irony.


Yes, that was definitely good for a chuckle.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Blurr is tenacious about his poo, I'll give him that.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

Blurr said:


> Yes because its fun, and get this, the animal kingdom does it too
> Everything from Elephants, to Elk enjoy playing in the mud, but if a human does it, OHH NOOOO's


This is probably the most stupidest blatantly retarded rationalization i've ever heard for attempting to minimize the effect of OHV impact on trail tread.

What a riot.

Actually Elephants are pretty light impact, when it runs they are unlike pretty much all other animals on the world including humans as it keeps 3 feet touching the ground at all times during it's run, and doesn't raise it's feet but only a few inches off the ground.

Also using the picture of the Elk calf playing in that puddle haha, that puddle i guarantee you wasn't caused by Elk. But erosion/puddles are caused and worsened by heavy impact and/or misuse of quad and OHV.

Elk are actually really frikking graceful if you've ever seen one run across cluttered backcountry. Pretty amazing to behold really.

Me personally i don't advocate for or against 2 wheeled moto's. Motorized user-groups do a lot of good on trails, i have nothing against them. But motorized groups need to back off of mt. bikers when they get all pissy thinking our recreation causes the same amount of impact. Motorized groups do have alot of things in common with mt. bikers, but i can tell you one thing i will never advocate for quads. Having 4 wheel machines singletrack capable that are a growing tangent represented by your user-group is a killer for your future. It's my opinion that alot of the anti-arguments against OHV go away when you subtract quads specifically.


----------



## Sooke642 (Feb 28, 2011)

kauaibullit said:


> This is happening in Sooke BC. Harbourview has some great downhill, all mountain and XC
> trails. It's a large area and if you've ever looked at coming out this way for a vacation, please
> read below and help. If you don't live in Canada and you want to help, when you write your
> letters, let them know that you like to travel to ride bike and if the only place to ride bikes in
> ...


little *****, most of the places you said are gated, and or you need a mebership for most of em, and your going to riding your little gay 4 inch travel bike thru the foot of snow up there in the winter, when your trying to get to the lakes? didnt think so, so let us be, and dont act like this is yours, it was all logging roads in the first place, you've just come in, in the last few years. my parents were up at those lakes wail you where just hittin puberty, hope your looking forword to having all the 2-strokes up in the summer, I know I'll be up there, and all those videos you posted arent even up there you dumb ass, I know most of the people you put there videos up, you'll be seeing all of us up there. good luck keeping up.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Sooke642 said:


> little *****, most of the places you said are gated, and or you need a mebership for most of em, and your going to riding your little gay 4 inch travel bike thru the foot of snow up there in the winter, when your trying to get to the lakes? didnt think so, so let us be, and dont act like this is yours, it was all logging roads in the first place, you've just come in, in the last few years. my parents were up at those lakes wail you where just hittin puberty, hope your looking forword to having all the 2-strokes up in the summer, I know I'll be up there, and all those videos you posted arent even up there you dumb ass, I know most of the people you put there videos up, you'll be seeing all of us up there. good luck keeping up.


LOL, good thing I have them on my comp. Maybe it's time to post them up again, your parents 
must be pretty old (I ain't no spring chicken)....son. You should do your homework before 
you start calling someone out. 4" bike LOL, you are a joke, what are you 15 or maybe 20? 
If you're so [email protected] hot, why aren't you up there right now?

Good on you for being a prick. Karma is a *****.


----------



## Sooke642 (Feb 28, 2011)

I'll e livin the sooke live till I'm 6 feet under


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

OMG, this is back? After glancing through it just continues to confirm what I've observed for a long time. 

Two stroke exhaust lowers IQ.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Sooke642 said:


> I'll e livin the sooke live till I'm 6 feet under


If you're so knowledgeable about Sooke, you should know that there are many ways around 
all those gates. But hey, better to oppose a park that's going to bring $$ and preserve at least 
a part of this are from more development and $hit all over it than ride up forestry roads.

Wait till Sooke is overrun by housing developments. I've seen the future of Sooke and it looks 
a lot like Colwood, or Oak bay, not much riding in either place.


----------



## salimoneus (Oct 12, 2004)

I think Sookie is pretty hot, she's not the best looker but the feisty attitude helps. Looking forward to the new season of True Blood.


----------



## stumblemumble (Mar 31, 2006)

zrm said:


> OMG, this is back? After glancing through it just continues to confirm what I've observed for a long time.
> 
> Two stroke exhaust lowers IQ.


 Indeed. Spelling and grammar ability are the first to go, followed by modesty.


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

Way to talk your your ass, you are really helping your cause.... /sarcasm


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I think someone's fixin for a beatdown from the banhammer.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

*im feelin' a banhammer!!!!*










said user clearly has no business mtbing and will never provide anything constructive

it pains me to say this because i wheel myself-- however im not a prick about it and use the "tread lightly" method


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Terrance? Is that you? We missed you.


----------



## copsey (Jul 11, 2010)

What's the word on this project anyway? Thread was a good read.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

If you do not like someone nor what they have to say, simply put them on Ignore, for hte life of me i cannot understand banning anyone with the exception of spammers


----------



## the_owl (Jul 31, 2009)

Blurr said:


> If you do not like someone nor what they have to say, simply put them on Ignore, for hte life of me i cannot understand banning anyone with the exception of spammers


You obviously dont visit the turner forums...


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Do the have anything to do with the Turner Diaries?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Do the have anything to do with the Turner Diaries?


----------



## Sooke642 (Feb 28, 2011)

Trail Ninja said:


> Terrance? Is that you? We missed you.


hahaha that guy is going no where with this


----------



## Stormwalker (Feb 23, 2011)

This was an interesting thread to read. Was any progress achieved?

It is surprising that the OP has problems with OHVs. ATVs and dirtbikes I could see, but OHVs like 4x4 Jeeps, and MTBs use very very different types of trails. I'm surprised there's a conflict between these two user groups.


----------



## mm9 (Apr 22, 2008)

I see trail access rights as being similar to rights of free speech. Personally, I don't care for riding ATV's and I don't care for them being on the trails. Also, I don't care for extremist groups marching and talking about their agenda. But, I believe in free speech and I believe in forest access. If I want more access for my bike, I have to be willing to put up with other forms of recreation I don't care for. To me the real evil is with the people and groups that want to keep us all out of the forest. When you start limiting various groups access, you eventually limit all of us. I'm for much more access freedom in the forest.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

mm9 said:


> I see trail access rights as being similar to rights of free speech. Personally, I don't care for riding ATV's and I don't care for them being on the trails. Also, I don't care for extremist groups marching and talking about their agenda. But, I believe in free speech and I believe in forest access. If I want more access for my bike, I have to be willing to put up with other forms of recreation I don't care for. To me the real evil is with the people and groups that want to keep us all out of the forest. When you start limiting various groups access, you eventually limit all of us. I'm for much more access freedom in the forest.


Free speech? Really? So somewhere in the constiution it says you have the right to drive a motor vehicles where ever you want? I must have missed that one in my social studies class.

So much more freedom in the forest huh? So I should be able to do what ever I want? How about go have fun with my bulldozer? (Don't limit my groups access! Recreational bulldozing is a legit user group and good family fun!) Dump trash, garbage, and toxic waste? Build trails where ever I want? Cut downs trees build a log cabin and just settle into my new home? Don't tread on me, I've got my rights!!!


----------



## brent878 (Apr 17, 2007)

ok i'll give my 2 cents on this issue since it seems I am on both sides of the topic. I race motorcycles and use mountain biking as training. I have ridden my motorcycle on MTB trails (legally) and I have ridden my MTB on motorcycle trails (legally).

Here are facts that I have seen:

fact #1: dirt bikes do more damage to the trails than MTB. Unless your riding as slow as bikers like taking your little kids around the dirt bikes are going to wear the trail faster but in different ways. There is just no way around it. Quads are even worse. But at the same time it will be faster to make new trails if OHV are running them. And atleast the places where I ride if you don't use a trail for a year or two they dissapear. Our riding spots will close trails down for a year or two so they can heal. We have tried to look for some closed trails before and can't find them. But this obviously depends on the enviornment. 

fact #2: when ever I was biking or hiking or just standing around you can always hear a dirt bike before you can see it. Unless your deaf there is no getting surprised by a dirt biker. When I am hiking I can hear mountain bikers coming down the trail if they are going fast enough to hurt me, how can you not hear a dirt bike from FAR away. Even if its trails in the forsest where its switch backs you can hear them way before they come even if you can't see them becuase of a blind corner. And oneo f your complaints is that they are way to noisy. So you can't complain that they are too noisy and then complain that they are dangerous to bikers/hikers becuase they could hit you. 

You mentioned health benifits for MTB vs OHV but I disagree. I am more tired after a race on my dirt bike then after riding my MTB for the same amount of time. I am not saying that OHV is better than MTB but the way you put it is OHV is like watching TV vs MTB. Its different, kinda like working out in the GYM for an hour vs MTB for an hour. Both good work outs but in different ways. Also you mentioned that MTB keeps kids off of drugs. Not sure where you get that from but are you saying that OHV promotes drug use then? I don't agree with this but don't have any evidence to support either way. Just from my experience I don't see more or less drug use with MTB or OHV.

And your point about riding area's. I cannot comment too much about that but here in California it sounds like the opposite. I have to drive over 2 hours to get to the nearest OHV trail for me. 1.5 hours to the closest MX track. For mountain biking I have to go 15 min my regular trail and 30 min to countless other ones. But it sounds like they aren't going to get rid of your area just add more people to it. Your using your energy to try and restrict OHV area's but instead I think you should be using your energy to try and get new MTB spots opened up. You complain that they have "everywhere" but it sounds like they have "everywhere" becuase they are going out and trying to find new places to ride.

So out of your orginal post the only valid points I see is that OHV will wear the trails faster to make trail maintance harder and make more noise. I don't think that's going to hold much water for keeping them out but good luck.


----------



## mm9 (Apr 22, 2008)

zrm said:


> Free speech? Really? So somewhere in the constiution it says you have the right to drive a motor vehicles where ever you want? I must have missed that one in my social studies class.
> 
> So much more freedom in the forest huh? So I should be able to do what ever I want? How about go have fun with my bulldozer? (Don't limit my groups access! Recreational bulldozing is a legit user group and good family fun!) Dump trash, garbage, and toxic waste? Build trails where ever I want? Cut downs trees build a log cabin and just settle into my new home? Don't tread on me, I've got my rights!!!


It was an analogy. To the most powerful and organized groups regarding the forests - the hiking groups and wilderness protection groups, you and your bike are like the bulldozer. They don't want you there. The rest of us various forest user types are divided as groups. The hikers, who want us all out, like us divided.. And what's crazy, is that as bikers we share more beliefs and lifestyles with the hikers than we do with many of the other groups.


----------



## the_owl (Jul 31, 2009)

What is it about Canadians and spelling.
pinkbike.com for examples.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

wonder how those mtn bike trails in Japan R looking


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

...


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

Probably fine considering they exist on higher elevations, hence the term "mountain biking" rft:


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/99515/

These are a real bunch of genius' right here. Best of the best, yep!


----------



## biggoofy1 (Aug 24, 2009)

Im an avid 4x4 and MTN bike enthusist and dont see a problem at all with sharing I would much rather see a jeep than horse crap on the trial!


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

biggoofy1 said:


> Im an avid 4x4 and MTN bike enthusist and dont see a problem at all with sharing I would much rather see a jeep than horse crap on the trial!


Watch the video I just posted to see what kind of motorized element we are dealing with. These 
are not the kind of people that can share the trails. When they are out here, whatever you're doing 
whatever is going on, becomes their "show". It's unfortunate, but that kind of behavior is common. 
With that kind of thinking, I'd rather have them on bicycles, than motorized equipment, far less 
damage potential.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

kauaibullit said:


> Watch the video I just posted to see what kind of motorized element we are dealing with. These
> are not the kind of people that can share the trails. When they are out here, whatever you're doing
> whatever is going on, becomes their "show". It's unfortunate, but that kind of behavior is common.
> With that kind of thinking, I'd rather have them on bicycles, than motorized equipment, far less
> damage potential.


I'd agree you can't share the trails but why not share the land, give them some to do whatever they want on and keep your part how you want. I didn't really see anything wrong with the video except for the drugs and stuff. The O.R.V.'s seem irresponsible but it's really because they have no where to ride, which turns into them riding everywhere. I'd also rather have experienced people riding/driving them than not, except of course when they are drugged up


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

I personally have no issues with sharing land, if it was our land...but it is now the CRD's land and is considered parkland and they have a no motor vehicle policy in all of their parklands. 

The other issue I have is there have been TONS of user meetings over the past many years and mountain bikers have been in the loop since the beginning, working hard to make sure that we have access to this amazing plot of land, then at the last minute the ORV group led by TM comes in and starts yelling...HEY WHAT ABOUT US, turning all of the users against each other and generally causing a disturbance. Well...maybe if you were in the conversation the whole time we would respect your position more...yes I know you used to use this land and it was very sneaky what the TLC did and yes I feel bad for you, but that does not give you the right to jump in at the last minute and pull this type of crap, if you as a group wanted to use the land you should have got organized and been in the conversation with CRD a long time ago.

As I am not an ORV user I don't have an answer to what you should do now....there are TONS of forest lands to use and maybe try to connect with one of the land owners...yes it will take work...but as we found out...all that hard work does pay off...but if you do nothing don't expect people to feel for you when you complain about having no where to play.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

ajd245246 said:


> I'd agree you can't share the trails but why not share the land, give them some to do whatever they want on and keep your part how you want. I didn't really see anything wrong with the video except for the drugs and stuff. The O.R.V.'s seem irresponsible but it's really because they have no where to ride, which turns into them riding everywhere. I'd also rather have experienced people riding/driving them than not, except of course when they are drugged up


The having no where to ride argument is bs. There are lots of places to ride, you just have to 
drive less than 15 min out of town. The other problem is that the person that was spearheading 
the opposition to HV being a park didn't care about the OHV crowd, he cared about getting his 
masters at Royal Roads university. Once he got ONE decision that went his way he stopped.

There are a lot of people that want to work with ohv community here in Sooke, but will not 
work with Mr. Martin because of his abrasiveness and his unwillingness to compromise.

So far, at least one timber company was going to allow proper ohv access to their lands, and 
both times Mr. Martin sabotaged it. He doesn't want limited access or access with rules, he 
wants to do whatever he wants wherever he wants the way he wants to do it. It's a shame 
because there is lots of land that could be opened up for ohv use, but people like him keep 
shooting themselves (and everyone else that wants access) in the foot. I have a 4x4 and would 
love to have legal and recognized access to the areas that we already go to, but with people 
like him and those in the videos (bogging in stream beds upstream from salmon habitat, drugs, shooting 
chasing wildlife, etc) will continue to keep this activity underground. There's lots of shuttle 
potential up there too, but until the ohv community comes to grips with the fact they will have to 
behave to get it, it will never come.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

kauaibullit said:


> The having no where to ride argument is bs. There are lots of places to ride, you just have to
> drive less than 15 min out of town. The other problem is that the person that was spearheading
> the opposition to HV being a park didn't care about the OHV crowd, he cared about getting his
> masters at Royal Roads university. Once he got ONE decision that went his way he stopped.
> ...


When I said "no where to ride", I was talking about legal places, when there is a designated portion of land to use I think it's pretty safe to say that most orv users will respect the priveledge, then there are the morons who abbuse it, and that goes for both mtb and orv.

Forgive me, but who is Mr. Martin, it's been awhile since I've read through this whole thread. How can one person get in the way of everything.


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

By being a pompous ass who not only divided the OHV/other trail users...but he pissed a lot of OHV people off too. He spoke for the OHV people to the land owner as a representative of the group...but he was really working on his degree and manipulating the system and all the people who were working hard to gain access to HV.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

ajd245246 said:


> Forgive me, but who is Mr. Martin, it's been awhile since I've read through this whole thread. How can one person get in the way of everything.


He is a very vocal and aggressive person here in Sooke. How he can get in the way of everything 
is because Sooke is a very small place. I'd need a whole thread to explain him and his doings.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

Well that clears things up quite a bit. Sucks for all the level headed people trying to have a good time on both sides.


----------



## jesseliketoride (Mar 13, 2007)

I have no issues with sharing land with OHVs. 

BUT single track is SINGLE track. No Atvs should be aloud on it. if they have there own trails and keep to them I'm happy. I don't mind sharing with motos if the ground can handle it. And that really depends where you are. With an half hour drive I know one spot that works just fine with motos on the single (they cut it!) and another that just gets torn up, it just comes down to soil type and moisture.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Imagine if our government simply closed of city streets do to vandalism and those that litter, it really comes down to the government shunning responsibility to take care of the land that every one of us pay taxes in order to access and enjoy. People should be outraged, instead they use it as an opportunity to be the typical Selfish westerner who believes everything belongs to them and no others. It is Ironic that the more someone touts the "conservationist label" the more they try to limit everyone else and need more trail maintenance than the rest of us.


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

It has been proven that if land is totally open to motorized use it tends to get abused by the same typical westerners. Oh wait how many other countries have I seen totally open land be abused....oh wait...so...it's not just a western trait...hmmm....I wonder then if it does make sense to keep motorized vehicles out of some park lands.

There are plenty of areas for OHV on the island....but they have to drive more than 10 minutes to get to them....or people are not working WITH the landowners to find a solution....they just want it and do not want to take responsibility or work for it.

We as mountain bikers have been working for this land for many years now, through ups and downs and now have been given access to it and some world class trails are going to come from this partnership.


----------



## Natedogz (Apr 4, 2008)

Steamer19 said:


> It never ceases to amaze me, the mentality of the off-roaders. I work with a guy who does this activity and he actually has the nerve to tell me that mountain biking is worse for the environment than his off-roading activities. He claims because of the wide, low pressure tires they have that their is very little environmental damage. Doesn't seem to be even worthwhile to waste a breath arguing.


As an off-roader and a MTBer...there are idiots from every walk of life who don't care about what they destroy. In California it is getting almost impossible to enjoy my 4x4 rock-crawler truck anywhere....and now they are working to close MTB trails. :madman: :madmax: :madman: The horse people are one of the main factors trying to get rid of bike access....we all need trails to ride...not sure what the answer is, but it seems that the govt getting involved usually makes us all losers.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

here in idaho certain ranger districts are treating mountain bikes like ohvs. so we are getting kicked out of singletrack becasue the ohvs are not allowed on them.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

tim208 said:


> here in idaho certain ranger districts are treating mountain bikes like ohvs. so we are getting kicked out of singletrack becasue the ohvs are not allowed on them.


That's because the federal government under (Roosevelt??) deemed wilderness land off limits to vehicles. In the 70's the federal government ruled that vehicle meant mechanical contrivances...bicycles. Funny how a 2000lb horse on a 4"x4" foot print is ok, but a 180lb person on a 2"X3-4" foot print is not.

What needs to be done is figure out what kind of real damage a certain area can handle and only allow contrivances that fall under those conditions for that area. Some areas people wouldn't be allowed to walk, while others can handle trucks.

By making Harbourview a park, it is now one place that won't see more housing development. What is needed out here is more of that kind of wilderness set aside. Some of that should be for OHVs too. But, as it stands we need a designation that would allow land to be preserved yet still allow vehicles.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Wow, I tried to read some of this thread but the level of idiocy is just phenomenal. What is it about these discussions that brings out the sewer-dwellers?

kauaibullit, I wish you the best of luck.

The Wilderness issue is another discussion entirely and not really relevant.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> That's because the federal government under (Roosevelt??) deemed wilderness land off limits to vehicles. In the 70's the federal government ruled that vehicle meant mechanical contrivances...bicycles. Funny how a 2000lb horse on a 4"x4" foot print is ok, but a 180lb person on a 2"X3-4" foot print is not.
> 
> What needs to be done is figure out what kind of real damage a certain area can handle and only allow contrivances that fall under those conditions for that area. Some areas people wouldn't be allowed to walk, while others can handle trucks.
> 
> By making Harbourview a park, it is now one place that won't see more housing development. What is needed out here is more of that kind of wilderness set aside. Some of that should be for OHVs too. But, as it stands we need a designation that would allow land to be preserved yet still allow vehicles.


Yea set aside more land that people cannot access, absolutely brilliant. American became great by taking advantage of its recourses, not by keeping the people away from them; wilderness area's are a lose for absolutely everyone but a few bunny huggers that hate themselves, really does not require much thought to understand that.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Blurr said:


> Yea set aside more land that people cannot access, absolutely brilliant. American became great by taking advantage of its recourses, not by keeping the people away from them; wilderness area's are a lose for absolutely everyone but a few bunny huggers that hate themselves, really does not require much thought to understand that.


_Bunny huggers?_ :lol:

As posted earlier, many of the posts like this on this thread give more weight to the idea that two stroke exhaust lowers IQ.


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

Wilderness plus OHV = not...really...wilderness IMO. Loud motors, mudbogging, rock crawling and that does not really align with what people think wilderness is about.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

zrm said:


> _Bunny huggers?_ :lol:
> 
> As posted earlier, many of the posts like this on this thread give more weight to the idea that two stroke exhaust lowers IQ.


really so your computer N mtn bike came to be by not allowing the exploitation of recourses? how can this be? Care to explain?


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

Wow...herpa derp...derp...herpa, derp....


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

mudpuppy said:


> Wilderness plus OHV = not...really...wilderness IMO. Loud motors, mudbogging, rock crawling and that does not really align with what people think wilderness is about.


False, nice try though, taken two months ago on forest service land, oh my, whats this? the sound of no motorized vehicles? you dont say? You mean you can find complete solitude without a wilderness area, why yes, yes you can, not hard at all.






Bottom line, People pay taxes for access to THEIR LAND, it is not the govenrments and they deserve the opportunity to enjoy said land not limited to what YOU think should be the only access.


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)




----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Blurr said:


> really so your computer N mtn bike came to be by not allowing the exploitation of recourses? how can this be? Care to explain?


Ir's like medicine and drugs. In the right environment their ok, but too much in the wrong place 
kills the patient/user. When you take a few percocetes for back pain you're a user, when you 
take them without any regard to your health you're an abuser. When you use the resources 
you need to think of the health of the land, overuse can kill it, destroy it or change it to a point 
where that resource is no longer available.

The problem is that kind of thinking you propose has been going on for a long time. As a result 
we are losing numerous species of animals and plants world wide directly from that kind of 
exploitation. We need to stop exploiting our resources and start to use them responsibly.

While I understand the frustration of OHV users, I think they/you are missing the point that 
they do a lot of damage when used as directed and can cause irreparable damage when 
taken to the extreme or in irresponsible hands.

The reason hikers/walkers are given more land to use is the potential for damage is very low 
unless the hiker has a axe and/or chainsaw. Bicycles are given a little less, because the potential 
for damage is higher than walking (potential mind you)...and while mx's can/do less damage than 
say a quad or 4X4, and access to them should be granted accordingly but unfortunately for 
them they are associated and clumped into the same group and their access should be limited 
to where and when.

It's very obvious when hiking/biking/4x4ing around here that certain groups are not allowed. 
The hiking only trails I've hiked here are in great shape, the biking only are also in great shape 
with very little to no evidence of trail bed damage or trash and trail side disturbance. Where 
shuttling is allowed (but not OHVs) there is a bit more damage visible but only in certain low 
lying areas where the trail design or government policies don't allow structures to go over them. 
BUT, every single place that allows OHVs shows serious levels of damage and trash being 
deposited. Mind you the quads by far are doing the most damage with 4x4's a hair behind 
but you can see where the roosting on climbs by mx's have done lots of damage.

While "many" OHV users are responsible and don't throw trash around, mud bogging in wetlands 
start camp fires in the summer, there is a significant population of them that do. It's because 
of them that they need to be regulated and controlled. Many people in N America are responsible 
enough to own a gun a carry it everywhere with them, but the many that can't is the reason 
we have gun laws.

It's the I'm better than the land and we should do anything we want ideology has resulted in 
between 20,000 and 30,000 species of life on this planet having gone extinct in the last 100 
years. Even today in our more "enlightened" and "educated" societies we're losing around 16 
species per day. When I was a kid clear cutting was the norm. When I was in the US Coast 
Guard we flew our C-130 from Kodiak to Washington at low level and followed the coastal route. 
It was amazing the damage we saw from clear cuts through Alaska and BC...staggering actually. 
As a rule now, that practice has been given up in NA, and block cuts are more common. This 
allows for the harvest of trees for houses and such, but allows some diversity to fill in the 
spaces left as the block regrows. If we were to continue with the clear cutting mentality the 
damage would be unimaginable.

So, while I go for a hike at Goldstream and think "wow, this would be a really fun trail to ride 
my bike on", I understand that many people that go for a hike/walk don't want to worry about 
me and my bike, whether it's the noise or just the speed that upsets them. I take my truck 
off road (no I don't rock crawl or go to that extreme, I just like to go into the woods for a fish 
or just to have some fun) and I understand why some people wouldn't want to see me flying 
by in my truck when they're on their hike or bike ride because as a rider I really don't like to 
deal with hikers nor as a trail builder I've had to deal with the constant fixing of berms and 
jumps from mx's and quads roosting, and of course there's the idea that getting out into the 
woods on my mtb is about getting away from the noise and smell of the internal combustion 
engine.

No where in any post have I said that OHV's should be banned, I have maintained that they 
should have places to go, but those places need to be looked at for their robustness, ability 
to handle it and of course the lack of trail conflicts. Why you can't understand that is astounding.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Blurr said:


> Bottom line, People pay taxes for access to THEIR LAND, it is not the govenrments and they deserve the opportunity to enjoy said land not limited to what YOU think should be the only access.


No bottom line is we pay taxes so our government can MANAGE the land and sometimes that 
means they lease it out to oil companies, logging companies, and power companies so they 
can use it to produce things for US/we the people. It also means that some places should be 
set apart and limited in their use, thanks go to Theodore Roosevelt for making national parks 
and raising our awareness to what we were doing back then (but apparently not everyones).

"The farther one gets into the wilderness, the greater is the attraction of its lonely freedom."- Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Ir's like medicine and drugs. In the right environment their ok, but too much in the wrong place 
kills the patient/user. When you take a few percocetes for back pain you're a user, when you 
take them without any regard to your health you're an abuser. When you use the resources 
you need to think of the health of the land, overuse can kill it, destroy it or change it to a point 
where that resource is no longer available. [/quote] and the point being like drugs you have to allow use, not ban it all together, failing at your own argument already.

[/quote]
The problem is that kind of thinking you propose has been going on for a long time. As a result 
we are losing numerous species of animals and plants world wide directly from that kind of 
exploitation. We need to stop exploiting our resources and start to use them responsibly. 
[/quote] lol, again, nobody is saying we do not need to take care of our recourses, however we must have access to said recourses (something a wilderness area flat out bans) again, FAIL with your own argument



> While I understand the frustration of OHV users, I think they/you are missing the point that
> they do a lot of damage when used as directed and can cause irreparable damage when
> taken to the extreme or in irresponsible hands.


 and so do semi trucks but it is completely Illogical to ban them from highways now isnt it 



> The reason hikers/walkers are given more land to use is the potential for damage is very low
> unless the hiker has a axe and/or chainsaw. Bicycles are given a little less, because the potential
> for damage is higher than walking (potential mind you)...and while mx's can/do less damage than
> say a quad or 4X4, and access to them should be granted accordingly but unfortunately for
> ...


Your entire argument fails on nearly every level, I am guessing you hav no real Idea what a wilderness area actually does in the aspect of banning access not only from recourcs but from activities as well, it all comes down to lazyness on th part of the government that realizes they have less to manage should an area simply be closed off to 99 percent of the people and of course again, takes away from the PEOPLE to again USE AND ACCESS THEIR LAND, why you cannot understand that is beyond me, wait, probably this is it. http://www.tracking-system.com/news/3-tracking-system-information/761-boy-with-no-brain-amazes.html



kauaibullit said:


> No bottom line is we pay taxes so our government can MANAGE the land and sometimes that
> means they lease it out to oil companies, logging companies, and power companies so they
> can use it to produce things for US/we the people. It also means that some places should be
> set apart and limited in their use, thanks go to Theodore Roosevelt for making national parks
> ...


Except Wilderness area's are not a "managed" area, they flat out shut it off to nearly everything save the hiker, FAIL on monumental proportions on your part.


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

kauaibullit, you can't argue with Blurr...so I just started posting pictures and speaking his language...


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Blurr said:


> Ir's like medicine and drugs. In the right environment their ok, but too much in the wrong place
> kills the patient/user. When you take a few percocetes for back pain you're a user, when you
> take them without any regard to your health you're an abuser. When you use the resources
> you need to think of the health of the land, overuse can kill it, destroy it or change it to a point
> where that resource is no longer available.


 and the point being like drugs you have to allow use, not ban it all together, failing at your own argument already.

[/quote]
The problem is that kind of thinking you propose has been going on for a long time. As a result 
we are losing numerous species of animals and plants world wide directly from that kind of 
exploitation. We need to stop exploiting our resources and start to use them responsibly. 
[/quote] lol, again, nobody is saying we do not need to take care of our recourses, however we must have access to said recourses (something a wilderness area flat out bans) again, FAIL with your own argument

and so do semi trucks but it is completely Illogical to ban them from highways now isnt it 

Your entire argument fails on nearly every level, I am guessing you hav no real Idea what a wilderness area actually does in the aspect of banning access not only from recourcs but from activities as well, it all comes down to lazyness on th part of the government that realizes they have less to manage should an area simply be closed off to 99 percent of the people and of course again, takes away from the PEOPLE to again USE AND ACCESS THEIR LAND, why you cannot understand that is beyond me, wait, probably this is it. http://www.tracking-system.com/news/3-tracking-system-information/761-boy-with-no-brain-amazes.html

Except Wilderness area's are not a "managed" area, they flat out shut it off to nearly everything save the hiker, FAIL on monumental proportions on your part.[/QUOTE]

Let me guess, you thought Bush was a great president and Fox news is truly fair and balanced? 
From the time we learned agriculture on this planet we learned the value of leaving a field 
to go fallow. To let it rest, and be left to it's own to replenish it's nutrients and flourish once 
again. The very act of leaving it alone is management. When you beak a bone, you wrap it 
up and leave it to heal. While you are doing nothing, and your doctor did nothing more than 
make it off limits to outside influence by putting it in a cast, he/she was managing your injury. 
The act of managing something does not include letting anything go on, sometimes stopping 
further damage and allowing it to heal is management. When you want to protect your money 
you put it in a place and leave it alone, while you spend some of your money to clothe 
yourself, house yourself and feed yourself, this is managing your money. In the same way 
that you use some of your resources to produce food, housing and produce other things that 
we use to live, you also allow some of that land/resources to be used for recreation. BUT, you 
also need to set aside land for use later, allow it to regrow and flourish so that maybe in the 
future you will have it in a state that may be useful. THIS is management.

Trust me when I say that I have nothing to do for the next two weeks, and I have tons of patience 
for fervent yet misinformed people like you. I type almost as fast as I can speak, so I can 
ramble for days, I have teh googles so I can find links and inundate you with facts if you so 
desire. I can argue my point in a objective and unemotional way because unlike you, I'm a 
centrist and I while I feel that everyone involved in this discussion (hiker/bikes/horses/mx/
quad/4x4/snowmobile/snowshoer/backcountry skier/hunter/gold pan[er]/photographer/etc) has a relevant and rightful claim to be able to enjoy their respective 
pursuits as long as they don't do unmanageable damage to the environment.

Another problem that you have is your view of "freedom" and government. You "say" you 
want to be free to do whatever you want, and that government should butt out. That would 
be anarchy, and while I would agree to a anarchistic society, it would have to be all or nothing. 
Also people like you say that the market should decide, and things like health care and other 
"social" programs should not be paid for by the government yet you enjoy the protection and 
benefit and support of our police force, fire dept, public school, public road work, public parks 
and of course this is a long list, I hope you get the idea. Of course a purely capitalistic society 
would only bring about a somewhat feudal government where there would be the people 
with power/money and the serfs. So unless you're making the top 5% of the income in the 
USA then you'd be joining the serf community and thus would be unable to afford to ride 
your bike/quad 
or even own a car. It's precisely this type of unregulated BS that brings us our present day 
high gas prices.

I await your imaginative and improper (since it's obvious you're either not reading or your reading 
comprehension skills are lacking) response to my post.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> and the point being like drugs you have to allow use, not ban it all together, failing at your own argument already.


The problem is that kind of thinking you propose has been going on for a long time. As a result 
we are losing numerous species of animals and plants world wide directly from that kind of 
exploitation. We need to stop exploiting our resources and start to use them responsibly. 
[/quote] lol, again, nobody is saying we do not need to take care of our recourses, however we must have access to said recourses (something a wilderness area flat out bans) again, FAIL with your own argument

and so do semi trucks but it is completely Illogical to ban them from highways now isnt it 

Your entire argument fails on nearly every level, I am guessing you hav no real Idea what a wilderness area actually does in the aspect of banning access not only from recourcs but from activities as well, it all comes down to lazyness on th part of the government that realizes they have less to manage should an area simply be closed off to 99 percent of the people and of course again, takes away from the PEOPLE to again USE AND ACCESS THEIR LAND, why you cannot understand that is beyond me, wait, probably this is it. http://www.tracking-system.com/news/3-tracking-system-information/761-boy-with-no-brain-amazes.html

Except Wilderness area's are not a "managed" area, they flat out shut it off to nearly everything save the hiker, FAIL on monumental proportions on your part.[/QUOTE]



> Let me guess, you thought Bush was a great president and Fox news is truly fair and balanced?


 gee, are you a Liberal by chance? what a surprise :madman:



> From the time we learned agriculture on this planet we learned the value of leaving a field
> to go fallow. To let it rest, and be left to it's own to replenish it's nutrients and flourish once
> again. The very act of leaving it alone is management. When you beak a bone, you wrap it
> up and leave it to heal. While you are doing nothing, and your doctor did nothing more than
> ...


Jesus christ you ar thick, and again, nobody is saying to let people Rampage and destroy the environmnt, what we are saying is that people deserve the Ability to enjoy THEIR LAND!!! key disagreement between librals, who believe nobody owns anything, and everyone else who Understands that the people pay taxes, own governmnt land, and should have reasonable access. 
As for high energy prices, you voted for the man who wants to bankrupt the common man, brilliant 



As for trails, damage done in the spring is far superior than your evil off road enthusiest could ever dream of 






Of course again, you are on the Irrational end of the spctrum so IM not expecting much at all as rational people will sit down and work on a comprehensiv solution for everyone vs your kind, BAN EVERYTHING!!!


----------



## mykel (Jul 31, 2006)

Lieberals and Repugs are just two sides of the same coin.
The movement of money and power from you and me to the elite.
History don't lie.

BTW - I'm not American - but from America's Hat. Same $hit up here.

michael


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Again, you are having a reading comprehension issue. I am not a liberal, I believe in gun ownership 
I believe in fiscal responsibility (which no republican has done in the last 40 years), I believe 
in many things, I voted for a republican governor for my state, but, I also have seen first hand 
the damage we impose and while I agree that the definitions of wilderness as interpreted by 
the US congress and what is and is not allowed is bs in some respects...to say that there should be 
not areas off limits to humans is dumb.

You keep saying how my argument fails, but show no reason why it's so. I propose a solution 
to OUR land, and you stick with the same old tired talking points that's been hammered into 
your head. The things you are saying are arguing with someone else. From your responses 
you have failed to understand what I'm saying. Remember the land belongs to ALL of us and 
it's up to our governments to decide the balance of use. You and I live in a society who's 
governments have to try and understand all or our needs and wants, and allow us our freedom 
to do what we would like to do...WHILE...ensuring that we don't interfere with each other 
AND what is the best for our future.

Of course this isn't always how it works out because special interest and big business lobby 
for their attentions and favors. My local park has baseball diamonds and a football/soccer 
field. If I were to set up a archery/gun range on a busy weekend I would be told to leave or given 
a fine. Even though I may know how to shoot a bow/gun very well and with very tight grouping 
the potential for me to hurt someone is there. So my right to shoot a bow/gun is superseded 
by what the government has deemed to be an unsafe activity that may impinge on others' 
rights to use that field.

When I asked if you think Bush was a great president and believed in Fox news, I wasn't 
saying I'm the opposite, I was stating that you are so single minded in your view that you are 
blind to the fact there are other people out there that don't feel like you do (a large %) and 
by your response (saying I'm a liberal and you banging your head), you show the inability 
to understand there are more than two points of view in the US thus falling for the trap that 
Fox has set for you.

I'm not sure why you keep harping on semi trucks driving on roads? I will say that they produce a lot of pollution and far more per lb they haul than do trains and boats, so are 
pretty inefficient, but with modification can and should be running CNG not Diesel. Or are 
you saying that the roads they drive on didn't take into account the surrounding natural environment 
and thus cause run-off and such (quite possibly true for many older roads).

You say that the wilderness areas that are hiking.equestrian only prevents 99% of the population 
from using it is pretty outrageous. I'd love to see the number/studies etc. Because what you're 
saying is that 99% of the US population is incapable of going for a hike? Or are you saying 
that getting into the deep back country is that hard? If so you are harping on what we can't 
do and not what we can...pretty sad if that's true, maybe you should get some help?

And your last argument is based on the broad assumptions that if you're not conservative 
then you're liberal and that all liberals want no one to go anywhere and conservatives would 
let you go anywhere and have more freedoms. On the first part, I am a centrist, I am far from 
liberal and far from conservative. I would support anarchy if it was true anarchy. I think it would 
be a good way of reducing the world population and of course only the strong of heart and 
quick of mind would survive. On the second part, the reality of the US party system over the 
last 30 yrs or so has shown that the Republicans reduce more civil liberties, and rights than 
the Democrats have. Of course, you have to acknowledge abortion and gay/black/women 
as being worthy of rights and liberties.

BTW, if you're going to quote me (or anyone) in the future here's some hints. Everything 
in between the [quotX] and the [/quoteX] (the "X" added to stop it from quoting) is the quote. 
The [quotX] is the opening of the tag, it's a way of telling our computers that there is some 
text coming that needs to be shaded and surrounded by a line or box. So, if you type or 
copy/paste another [quotX] after the first one, the first one will be read as being opened 
but not finished and our computers will think you just meant to type [quote as an example. 
So to conclude, open a quote with a [quotX] and finish with a [/quotX] the "/" in the brackets 
tells our computers that it's the end of the quote. That's why some smrt people type /thread 
after a particularly funny or poignant post, so as to say to everyone (not our computers) that 
there is no need to continue to argue because this persons post says it all and they are right 
and nothing you can add to this thread is going to matter.

/thread


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> Again, you are having a reading comprehension issue. I am not a liberal, I believe in gun ownership
> I believe in fiscal responsibility (which no republican has done in the last 40 years), I believe
> in many things, I voted for a republican governor for my state, but, I also have seen first hand
> the damage we impose and while I agree that the definitions of wilderness as interpreted by
> ...


 While allowing reasonable access, not that hard to understand at all, but keep typing your books and babbling on.



> Of course this isn't always how it works out because special interest and big business lobby


 Notice argumnt at hand, your failing miserably again



> for their attentions and favors. My local park has baseball diamonds and a football/soccer
> field. If I were to set up a archery/gun range on a busy weekend I would be told to leave or given
> a fine. Even though I may know how to shoot a bow/gun very well and with very tight grouping
> the potential for me to hurt someone is there. So my right to shoot a bow/gun is superseded
> ...


 lol an area as small as a soccer field? seriously this is your argument :nono:



> When I asked if you think Bush was a great president and believed in Fox news, I wasn't
> saying I'm the opposite, I was stating that you are so single minded in your view that you are
> blind to the fact there are other people out there that don't feel like you do (a large %) and
> by your response (saying I'm a liberal and you banging your head), you show the inability
> ...


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

Quadtards on mtb singletrack? redonkulous... trail will be ruined by the first 2. I've gotten into arguments about studded bicycle tires being banned on winter trails, but this stuff is out of the ballpark and should be required reading for those tree hugger sierra club types.

I can't believe a 30lb bicycle is the same class of vehicle as those things under US forestry laws or whatever. Idiocy.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Blurr said:


> While allowing reasonable access, not that hard to understand at all, but keep typing your books and babbling on.
> 
> Notice argumnt at hand, your failing miserably again
> 
> lol an area as small as a soccer field? seriously this is your argument :nono:


Again you failed at both reading comprehension and quoting someone. 
The point wasn't about the size as much as the right of one group over another and the 
separation of the two.



> Whther I watch Fox or Like bush Is compltely Irrelevnt and what the "left" always liks to put forth. But hey, keep using leftist tactics and you will get labled a leftist. Of course you will spout off with something as subjective as this yet watch the ultra leftist MSNBC, what does rachel maddow have to tell you to think today? You are evil, yes any special interest is.


I'd take you more seriously and think you were older than 12 if you could spell. Same blah 
blah out of you, no fact just babble. I don't watch msnbc, try again. Again, not left.



> And you cannot have rail to every possible part of the country and you also must hav a way to get goods from a train to a store, course you also have semi's that haul packages, dirt, and other Items that do not fall into the rail argument again, logic fail on your part, at this point Im thinking sterilization may be the best approach for you, but I will read more of your blither and go from there. And CNG falls way, way short of Diesel and has ben tossed asid in favor of Diesel for many reasons, IM sure you will need me to hold your hand on that as wll. So again, be all that as though it may a Semi is somthing that must b on th highways weathr a bunny huggre lik yourself likes it or not. :madman:


Never said you do have to have rail, and CNG is going to be the future, like it or not. Being 
so right wing you should want CNG to take over since that would eliminate our dependency 
on foreign oil (we have a bunch of natural gas, enough to last quite a while). But throwing 
insults at me only shows your ignorance, intolerance and sheer stupidity.



> Hiking and equisestrian limits to a very small group of outdoorsmen as it again, excludes all other forms of outdoors activity, not that hard to understand that it falls nicely into a very small area, evidntly for you it is, now closing off said area to all othr forms obviously again, leaves only special amount of people, it fully leaves out those that 1 have no land or ability to own horses (not for everyone I grew up with horses so we probably should avoid this further) and of course it leaves out those not physically able be it simply out of shape (surprise not up to the governmnt or you to tell someone what shape they should b in, this is about enjoyin nature, not forcing people to your narrow minded view of physical ability) and of course those who are elderly and disabled and last again, we are all tax payers, hav paid for said land, and there needs to b realistic ways for people to enjoy said land. If you want a piece of land to only let your bunny huggers on, thn buy one that is your right.


This is where we get hung up, and will not EVER see eye to eye. There needs to be places 
of refuge. It has nothing to do with being lazy, since it takes a lot of effort to keep idiots off 
the lands and prevent them from poaching etc. Not sure why you call me a bunny hugger 
but I will say bunnies taste mighty good.



> uhm champ you might want to look and see that it was the republicans, not the democrats who free'd the slaves, pushed through civil rights legislation and even lowered intrest rates for the common man, but hey, dont let facts get into yoru way of gross assumptions, you havnt thus far.


Again, your reading comprehension fails you. I said in the last 30 years. What the mantra 
of the Republican party was and was founded on is NOT and in no way even remotely in the 
same ball park to what the Republican party is today or where the where just 30 years ago. 
Reagan would be considered a leftist freak by todays Republicans party.



> BTW, if you're going to quote me (or anyone) in the future here's some hints. Everything
> in between the [quotX] and the [/quoteX] (the "X" added to stop it from quoting) is the quote.
> The [quotX] is the opening of the tag, it's a way of telling our computers that there is some
> text coming that needs to be shaded and surrounded by a line or box. So, if you type or
> ...


I see you quoted this part so poorly that it is now I'm quoting myself because your reading 
skills are so poor. Maybe it's a result of the US public school system.

I kept my responses shorter this time in the hopes that you might have something intelligent 
to say but I'm not holding my breath, though I do have high hopes that you will continue to 
embarrass yourself and keep us entertained by your ignorance. :thumbsup: I put a smiley 
face up there so you might understand it better. Maybe on my next response I'll use pictographs 
to assist in your education.



> my E is not working properly, but thanks for the ultra important lesson on quotes moron


Apparently neither does f7, or your apostrophes or your ability to preview your work so as not to 
make you look like an imbecile

It's people like you that make the rest of the world laugh at us knowing there's no chance 
that the USA will surpass them in education and science. Please keep typing.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

electrik said:


> I can't believe a 30lb bicycle is the same class of vehicle as those things under US forestry laws or whatever. Idiocy.


When the government and left wing eco-nazi groups like the Sierra Club have to contend with 
such blatant ignorance as Blurr is showing here as well as the same kind of ignorance on the 
far left from most environmental groups, it's no wonder that bicycles get confused and put in 
the same league as them and we get shut out of so much. But BC is evidence that with cooperation 
and education by MTB groups that can show empirical evidence that we do the same and in 
many cases less damage than hikers do.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> Again you failed at both reading comprehension and quoting someone.
> The point wasn't about the size as much as the right of one group over another and the
> separation of the two.
> 
> ...


 refer to my article on somone living being empty headed, that would be you for sure.



> Never said you do have to have rail, and CNG is going to be the future, like it or not. Being
> so right wing you should want CNG to take over since that would eliminate our dependency
> on foreign oil (we have a bunch of natural gas, enough to last quite a while). But throwing
> insults at me only shows your ignorance, intolerance and sheer stupidity.


 CNG is nothing new and is not a very good system, an alternative yes, a replacment, not on any level should educate yourself as to why but Im not expecting you to, would you like me to point out why? I will give you one environmental problem we all should be concerned about, that is 1. waste from the natural gas, 2. fissures from the injection causing minor earthquakes, http://geology.com/press-release/salt-water-injection-earthquakes/ education is key, ya aught to try it.



> Again, your reading comprehension fails you. I said in the last 30 years. What the mantra
> of the Republican party was and was founded on is NOT and in no way even remotely in the
> same ball park to what the Republican party is today or where the where just 30 years ago.
> Reagan would be considered a leftist freak by todays Republicans party.


 keep back tracking



> I see you quoted this part so poorly that it is now I'm quoting myself because your reading
> skills are so poor. Maybe it's a result of the US public school system.
> 
> I kept my responses shorter this time in the hopes that you might have something intelligent
> ...


 Yup your thinking and simply not wanting to admit at this point, thats good.



> It's people like you that make the rest of the world laugh at us knowing there's no chance
> that the USA will surpass them in education and science. Please keep typing.


Ya uhm ok, good to see you did not think of a fraction that I listed, yes I know your owned, your reply pretty much stated that, good day.


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Blurr said:


> refer to my article on somone living being empty headed, that would be you for sure.
> 
> CNG is nothing new and is not a very good system, an alternative yes, a replacment, not on any level should educate yourself as to why but Im not expecting you to, would you like me to point out why? I will give you one environmental problem we all should be concerned about, that is 1. waste from the natural gas, 2. fissures from the injection causing minor earthquakes, http://geology.com/press-release/salt-water-injection-earthquakes/ education is key, ya aught to try it.
> 
> ...


Still waiting for a coherent response for anything I've written, but I will continue to adress 
your somewhat scattered points:

As far a CNG not being a replacement, you should look into it some more. As far as it not 
being as good, sure it has less joules of of energy, but with the newer smog devices required 
on big rigs it becomes more appealing. Also take into account it's much lower cost it makes 
it that much more viable. And, take into account that it is cleaner both for the environment (which 
I know you don't care about, but some of us do) as well as for the engine it makes it better 
still. With better injectors and electronic controls power becomes even less of an issue. 
Anything we look at now is only an interim solution, for down the line an alternative will be 
needed diesel is a relic.

I believe if you look at all my past posts, I've only mentioned the Republican party being the 
voice of wealthy special interests with no care for the middle class, and has been attacking 
the middle class for a few decades. What the Republicans have been spewing forth is not 
true Republican values. I've never said the Democrats have been holding true to their values 
of social responsibility, but they have been damn good with the budget and deficit for the last 
40 years with Clinton showing the most achievements in that respect, though by keeping 
with Bush seniors deregulation and even expanding it during his tenure he did set us up 
for some of the issues that was the result of Bush jr.s ineptitude in handling our government.

But you keep with insulting me without substance and you keep solidifying the worlds opinion 
of some Americans and of many on this boards opinions of OHVs.

Please keep typing, I await your prose with baited breath and fervent heart.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> Still waiting for a coherent response for anything I've written, but I will continue to adress
> your somewhat scattered points:
> 
> As far a CNG not being a replacement, you should look into it some more. As far as it not
> ...


 Coincidently I have several semi's, Power is very relative especially in the west with actual grades to deal with, in the flatter area's CNGs can work, but not very well, I have yet to meet anyone who liks them, as for an environmental standpoint, yea, uhm, if you are injecting toxic waste straight into the ground what do you think the long term effect of that will be? not to mention the little fact its creating instability in the ground, ****ing brilliant, back to your room.



> I believe if you look at all my past posts, I've only mentioned the Republican party being the
> voice of wealthy special interests with no care for the middle class, and has been attacking
> the middle class for a few decades. What the Republicans have been spewing forth is not
> true Republican values. I've never said the Democrats have been holding true to their values
> ...


 lol ya and you try to say you are not a liberal, anyhow, this is totally Irrelevent to the topic at hand but just an FYI you probably should look into congress and their roll in the budget as well, just a thought. I know, I know, liberals like to believe the king does everything, but surprise, he does not, you may start here http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10803/01-14-Employment.pdf oh my so you mean the democrat congress under republican presidents actually has sometehing to do with our debt  and shock, even the Iraq war?  http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/...ons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

And you mean caring democrats on employment? lik Harry Ried? what does he do again? hmmm sold out his state with what the second highest employment rate, yea, the dems care moron "Wind at their backs: Powerful Democrats help Chinese energy firm chase stimulus money" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40565987/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
ohhh ohhh helping out rich people with the win sham some mo "that GE has received just short of $300 million in grants from 2000-2010."

http://www.instituteforenergyresear...s-over-2-3-federal-energy-grants-every-month/
And BP, wait, wut, I thought they was the devil!! http://californiawatch.org/environm...ernment-stimulus-funds-california-power-plant



> But you keep with insulting me without substance and you keep solidifying the worlds opinion
> of some Americans and of many on this boards opinions of OHVs.
> 
> Please keep typing, I await your prose with baited breath and fervent heart.


lol yea ok commie


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

Democrats:
- Women's Suffrage Amendment,
- Securities & Exchange Act,
- Social Security Act,
- Unemployment Compensation,
- Rural Electrification Act,
- Federal Home Load Program,
- Minimum Wage,
- Overtime,
- GI Bill,
- School Lunch Program,
- The Marshall Plan,
- NATO,
- Peace Corps,
- Voting Rights Act,
- First Manned Moon Mission,
- Civil Rights Act,
- Medicare,
- Medicaid,
- Head Start,
- Guaranteed Student Load Program,
- Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA),
- Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,
- Healthcare Reform,
- the Fair Sentencing Act and Financial Reform.






The Democrats are guilty of being a bunch of pussies not standing up for what they "say" 
they believe in and it's one of the biggest reasons that even with a full majority in the house 
senate and a Democrat for a president, they can't get anything done. They are too swayed 
by rhetoric.

What the US needs is a little less trickle down and more equal taxation. Flat tax top to bottom 
no deductions. There's something seriously wrong with a nation when 400 individuals have 
75% of the money and where less than 10% has more than 90% of the total wealth. Neither 
party is doing anything to help the middle class, only the Dems are limply even trying to help 
the poor and while the Republicans are spearheading the campaign to help the wealthy get 
even more rich, the Democrats follow along trying not to upset the apple cart. The Democrats 
have no real focus worrying about polls more than their values, but the Republican values 
are so right wing and extreme they only help to divide the US and with brave new world rhetoric 
make people like you believe they're right.

I fear for my countries future if the right keep shifting more right and the left sit like limp dicks 
swaying in the wind. With no balance of power, people like you and me will be poorer than 
poor. But you keep name calling and standing on your high horse not questioning the 
magniloquent speech fox news spews into your living room every night. The left wing 
nut jobs will flounder in their world of prolixity and eventually albeit too late the US population 
will finally come to understand the incriminations of the right toward the left were all pomp 
smoke and mirrors to further their agenda of eliminating the middle class and shifting even 
more of the wealth upward to the ever shrinking and concentrated top 10. But while the 
now 90+% of the population being so poor and with the constitution, social services civil 
liberties and people so denigrated they will then be powerless to do anything about it. Sure, you'll 
be able to own a gun, but you won't be able to afford one let alone the ammo to start an 
uprising.

Neither party is the answer, but with the present day ignorant and very vocal philistine eccentricities 
with their blind devotees resembling theological devotion; the USA is headed for hard times 
indeed.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

kauaibullit said:


> The Democrats are guilty of being a bunch of pussies not standing up for what they "say"
> they believe in and it's one of the biggest reasons that even with a full majority in the house
> senate and a Democrat for a president, they can't get anything done. They are too swayed
> by rhetoric.
> ...


 Wait hold on, HOLD ON, I agree, the problem being however tax incentives are used to attract business to an area, so tricky road there but we certainly can do better



> no deductions. There's something seriously wrong with a nation when 400 individuals have
> 75% of the money and where less than 10% has more than 90% of the total wealth. Neither
> party is doing anything to help the middle class, only the Dems are limply even trying to help
> the poor and while the Republicans are spearheading the campaign to help the wealthy get
> ...


 I disagree about the democrats again they are helping out themselves "see gore and the ******** carbon credits" ect, but I will agree with most of what you said here.



> I fear for my countries future if the right keep shifting more right and the left sit like limp dicks
> swaying in the wind. With no balance of power, people like you and me will be poorer than
> poor.


 I dislike a party system it is always self serving



> But you keep name calling and standing on your high horse not questioning the
> magniloquent speech fox news spews into your living room every night. The left wing
> nut jobs will flounder in their world of prolixity and eventually albeit too late the US population


 so sounds like you are wishing for the left here though.



> will finally come to understand the incriminations of the right toward the left were all pomp
> smoke and mirrors to further their agenda of eliminating the middle class and shifting even
> more of the wealth upward to the ever shrinking and concentrated top 10. But while the
> now 90+% of the population being so poor and with the constitution, social services civil
> ...


 Courage, the second amendment has actually held us back as it is something of a security blanket of sorts, and of course we still have it damn good in the country so until that changs, nobody will do anything. But in reality whn you sit and watch people actually debate on building a wall between us and mexico and singling out a certain race as the "problem" meanwhile forgetting immigration and diversity is what made us great. 
Seeing police tase people who simply disagree with them my god, what have we become.



> Neither party is the answer, but with the present day ignorant and very vocal philistine eccentricities
> with their blind devotees resembling theological devotion; the USA is headed for hard times
> indeed.


Hey I agree, who would of thought? :thumbsup: and with that Im gonna go check out the natural erosion on one of my usual trails and see what has to be done to get it back into normality.


----------



## classiccanadianblizzard (Apr 26, 2006)

Thanks for the tip, Sooke BC will be where I take my next vacation with my quads. Sounds like a great place to ride


----------



## pyrotyro (Mar 27, 2011)

holy *****


----------



## kauaibullit (Apr 5, 2005)

classiccanadianblizzard said:


> Thanks for the tip, Sooke BC will be where I take my next vacation with my quads. Sounds like a great place to ride


There's tons of places to take your quad and you'll be more than welcome at those places.


----------

