moyiesledhead
Active VIP Member
Mmmmmmmm, you might be surprised!
Fines for creek crossings?
- Thread starter ssjrmk
- Start date
Mmmmmmmm, you might be surprised!
camoJoe
Active VIP Member
Exactly my point !, but you need to " insure a bridge ",...seems to be nothing but another cash cow to me, how many bridges on public land in this province?
To add to this thread I will add my understanding/experience/the law with this issue:
I had always believed that if you crossed a creek/stream/"flowing body of water" directly - bank to bank (right-angle) - that you were "legal"/operating as the laws on the books stated.
At a recent South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (S.S.R.P.) stakeholder/public meeting in Pincher Creek, specifically for input for the Recreational Plan (motorized and non-motorized) for the Porcupine Hills, this came to a head. An individual in the room stated that it was 100% illegal for any O.H.V. to cross through water in a stream/creek/river. I challenged his assertion, as - in past conversations with Conservation Officers - I had been told that it was legal to cross at right-angles, just not "within" a stream/creek/river, "running" up and down it. I asked the head Conservation Officer in attendance from the Crowsnest Pass what the law was.
He took the microphone and proceed to inform the crowd that it was, in fact, illegal in the written law of Alberta, to cross a stream/creek/river on any O.H.V. with tires in the water. He further stated that "the government of Alberta" has taken the position - since the use of the backcountry is so large with O.H.V. users and the infrastructure is not there to support it - they will not ticket O.H.V.'ers if they cross "flowing waters" at right angles. The feeling is, if they did so, that they would jam up the courts with those "lesser" charges, and risk upsetting the legal department/people in the province. They do not want to do this as they work very hard on poaching and other much more "serious" charges, and do not want to create an environment of negativity between judges and their department. His words.
So, my take is, while we work through the S.S.R.P. process - currently - they will not charge you if you are not being a dumbie, damaging a creek bed. Cross flowing waters slowly at a right-angle for now, and all will be fine.
I had always believed that if you crossed a creek/stream/"flowing body of water" directly - bank to bank (right-angle) - that you were "legal"/operating as the laws on the books stated.
At a recent South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (S.S.R.P.) stakeholder/public meeting in Pincher Creek, specifically for input for the Recreational Plan (motorized and non-motorized) for the Porcupine Hills, this came to a head. An individual in the room stated that it was 100% illegal for any O.H.V. to cross through water in a stream/creek/river. I challenged his assertion, as - in past conversations with Conservation Officers - I had been told that it was legal to cross at right-angles, just not "within" a stream/creek/river, "running" up and down it. I asked the head Conservation Officer in attendance from the Crowsnest Pass what the law was.
He took the microphone and proceed to inform the crowd that it was, in fact, illegal in the written law of Alberta, to cross a stream/creek/river on any O.H.V. with tires in the water. He further stated that "the government of Alberta" has taken the position - since the use of the backcountry is so large with O.H.V. users and the infrastructure is not there to support it - they will not ticket O.H.V.'ers if they cross "flowing waters" at right angles. The feeling is, if they did so, that they would jam up the courts with those "lesser" charges, and risk upsetting the legal department/people in the province. They do not want to do this as they work very hard on poaching and other much more "serious" charges, and do not want to create an environment of negativity between judges and their department. His words.
So, my take is, while we work through the S.S.R.P. process - currently - they will not charge you if you are not being a dumbie, damaging a creek bed. Cross flowing waters slowly at a right-angle for now, and all will be fine.
Thanks for clearing that up because most of the places I ride require crossing creeks to follow the trail. I though you could cross like you said if there is no bridge. If crossing creeks is so damaging why doesn't the government use the registration cash we all pay to build bridges on the tail systems in areas they consider to be sensitive.
Usually what happens is the local club will get the trail registered as a motorized access trail and once registered forestry/parks and recreation adds it to their insurance coverage. Then its up to the local club to maintain the trail and bridges. Then they can also get funding to build bridges and such..
- Moderator
- #27
Allseasons
Active VIP Member
This is some of the dumbest **** I've read. A drunk azz hat falls off a bridge can sue. Sue who? I've seen Friggen idiots drive straight into a tree before and fly off their quad. I guess they can sue for that too.
This world has become retarded. People going out of their way, time out of there life to build bridges to protect habitat, only to have them ripped out by srd, plain azz retarded
This world has become retarded. People going out of their way, time out of there life to build bridges to protect habitat, only to have them ripped out by srd, plain azz retarded
tex78
Active VIP Member
110% correct
This new anti bullying, soft non hurt feelings world has to stop
No one has a back bone, or can say they fawked up and crashed and it's there fault
The list goes on
Unfortunately thats what our world has come to. People sure for the dumbest things trying to make a quick buck.. And yes they can try to sue whoever built the bridge whether it be a private citizen that built it on his own time and money, or the gov that sponsored the trail. I agree with you people use their own time and resources to build something to protect the environment/habitat and it gets removed by someone. Its the idiots that have ruined it for the rest of us making the gov protect their butt. Its exactly why i will not build any bridges or crossings we have 100's of km of trails that are not registered yet and are in need of work. But just to many idiots out their.
LBZ
Active VIP Member
How would they know which private citizen built the bridge? Are people putting their name on signs after they lash some logs together??
No but about 80% of them post up pictures of what they are doing. The other 19% of people don't know enough to keep their mouth shut of what they have accomplished. While they are usually doing something good for the sport and build something good product their are also the guys that just fall a few undersized trees and hope they hold and stay In place on their own.. I've been on a few of those and someone had the common sense to take it down and do it right.
Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
- Moderator
- #33
That is an excellent question, one that has been asked governments over and over and.......crickets! I wish any government would have the balls to give us citizens a motorized recreation plan, with a funding model......much like hunters have now.
- Moderator
- #35
I understand you frustration. From what I understand, even if you are trying to protect the environment, if one constructs a bridge with out government approval - especially on a "trail" not recognized as a "designated trail" by the government - it may very well be removed. Complicating the matter is that in different parts of the province this is enforced in different ways. Some C.O.'s/Forest Rangers/Fish and Wildlife officers "in charge" take down bridges, some don't - as I hear it. It really comes down to the individual in charge, and how much of a problem it is for them - is the public at large complaining, is a group really vocal, does a lease holder scream bloody murder? Until we have a designated trail "program/regulations" for the province, instead of patch work systems that are not managed in a like manner, we will continue to see good volunteer work removed.
- Moderator
- #37
Are you all working with AOHVA on trail systems ?
If you read the law - - it is illegal to be in the water with an O.H.V. That said, as I indicated previously - most officers will not ticket if you are just crossing at right angles. This is as you indicated: trail comes to a stream, you proceed straight across to where trail picks up on the other bank and keep going, usually not a problem. BUT if there has been "pressure" from a local individual or group, or your local enforcement officer has a problem with azz hat O.H.V. law breakers, you may get a ticket for crossing a stream/creek/river. There appears to be no consistency across the province.
This is my understanding of their funding model too - from the manufactures, plus grants where they are approved. Good work done for trail building by them.
I just do not understand how they are organized or run. I can only find out that they accept memberships from clubs, not individuals. Then whoever is on the A.O.V.H.A. executive decides what activities and projects they pursue. This is in contrast to the Alberta Snowmobile Association model I am more familiar with; A.S.A. memberships through a trail pass as well as club memberships bought through individual clubs. Not every A.S.A. member is a registered club member - some people do not want to belong to a club it seems. Everything in the A.S.A. is conducted in the open, and any member can ask for and receive an annual report, where the Three Year plan the volunteer executive and office staff are operating under. As well, they report to members multiple times a year.
As much as I have asked and looked into the A.O.V.H.A., I can not say how they run themselves - it does not seem to be public, or even to some O.H.V. member clubs - knowledge, from my research.
A.O.H.V.A. are at all the same tables I am at.
Similar threads
