Forest service roads

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

13B-T BJ60 said:
Ever since Bill 30 (Resource Road Act) faded away back in 2008, there hasn't been much media exposure about the issue.

The topic is alive and well within the government though. For those that haven't thought about it for a while, here is the the current status:

Natural Resource Road Act Project - Province of B.C.

There is a discussion paper link with feedback accepted until mid-December.
Click to expand...


"Any road lacking a designated maintainer may be subject to deactivation.
What this means: Where there is no designated maintainer, government may
determine that the risk to users or the environment is too great to allow the road to continue to remain open"

Does not sound good.

On the other hand,

"Open Roads: Roads if open are available to everyone except as required to protect the road, to mitigate unacceptable environment impacts, and to provide for the safety of road users.
What this means: The designated maintainer cannot decide who is allowed to use the road. However, users must meet obligations, such as following road use rules, and those who do not may be subject to enforcement actions.
The designated maintainer will have the authority to temporarily close roads to
everyone for maintenance activities or when conditions put the road, the
environment or users at risk. For example, it may be necessary to restrict use or close the road temporarily due to timber falling operations next to a road, spring break-up, or maintenance activities such as bridge replacement."

Means a lot of gates would disappear.

Jonathan Colvin
 
canucksafari said:
Thanks for posting. I can see a lot in there that would be of interest to 4wheelers.

It would be great if we as a community had our individual comments echo those of the 4WDABC. Kim, has the 4WDABC come out with positions on the feedback points?
Click to expand...

No, we have not responded yet. We have 2 weeks to do so. Currently, I am compiling the responses and concerns that I have received.

I'm all for getting 'designated maintainer' status once a few questions are answered. One, funding, do we get any? and two, liability. Another that comes to mind about my reading of this is bridges, when they are installed by a resource company what happens to them....my preference would be that they become taxpayer owned and left in place.

I am always interested in opinions and comments. Please, send them our way.
 
I'd prefer the way it seems to be done in Washington. At the access point there is a sign which tells the driver that they are about to travel on an unmaintained road and they do so at their own risk.

I would not be against a yearly permit for all off-road vehicles (including those on ATVs and Motor Bikes) that also would require all vehicles to be registered and licensed. I noticed up north that all commercial operaters using industrial roads have to have a separate vehicle identification plate. I'd have no problem with that as a recreational user. It helps provide some accountability. I would like to see any money collected go right back into the resource. Not sure if that's a pipe dream or not.
 
jcolvin said:
"Open Roads: Roads if open are available to everyone except as required to protect the road, to mitigate unacceptable environment impacts, and to provide for the safety of road users.
What this means: The designated maintainer cannot decide who is allowed to use the road. However, users must meet obligations, such as following road use rules, and those who do not may be subject to enforcement actions.
The designated maintainer will have the authority to temporarily close roads to
everyone for maintenance activities or when conditions put the road, the
environment or users at risk. For example, it may be necessary to restrict use or close the road temporarily due to timber falling operations next to a road, spring break-up, or maintenance activities such as bridge replacement."

Means a lot of gates would disappear.

Jonathan Colvin
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, just means that when you get to a gate the guy will tell you the road is in unsafe condition and you can kiss the lock on your way out. Changes nothing. Unless there is a specific law that states all public roads are to remain public access no matter what, the gates will stay on. Also the issue we have is that we, in most cases, go by the roads marked on maps such as the Backroad Mapbooks. Those do not include private land areas, there are many times I've come up to ranches, farms, homesteads that have an FSR on the map heading into the hills and there's a locked gate, private property sign and a guy telling you to go hit the pavement. What are you going to do? argue? He pays his land tax and doesn't want to see yahoos crossing his property and scaring his cattle, doesn't matter if we're nice guys or not.
It sucks, and I've had many plans ruined by that scenario, in the end I keep reminding myself that every time it happens, I'm still glad I've got more open land to roam than all of Europe combined......at least for now....
 
canucksafari said:
I would like to see any money collected go right back into the resource. Not sure if that's a pipe dream or not.
Click to expand...
Extra revenue that we can use to fund our ridiculously expensive projects that we'll charge a toll on afterward?! hell yea!
or better yet, extra money that we get to pour into a private company that supplies our public transportation and keeps having financial trouble due to overspending and personal profit? hell yea!
how about we pour some more cash into a large non-profit company that sells insurance and owns a great deal of buildings and has investments because it made a profit, but when the investments go bad the people get charged more for insurance? Sounds great!

rant over:D
 
Fantom said:
Extra revenue that we can use to fund our ridiculously expensive projects that we'll charge a toll on afterward?! hell yea!
or better yet, extra money that we get to pour into a private company that supplies our public transportation and keeps having financial trouble due to overspending and personal profit? hell yea!
how about we pour some more cash into a large non-profit company that sells insurance and owns a great deal of buildings and has investments because it made a profit, but when the investments go bad the people get charged more for insurance? Sounds great!

rant over:D
Click to expand...

It would be nice to think we could emulate the structure and common sense what state governments to the South have done. But I take it, you don't think BC politicians and pencil pushers are capable. :hillbilly:

My bet is that in the future we are going to need to come up with workable models to keep our access to FSR and trails open. BC is going to be a lot more complicated than the US. We also have to consider the traditional territories of First Nations. Coming up with proposal that will have a bit of a carrot for everyone, will be the only solution.
 
I didn't look at the precise wording of the legislation but is does say that the maintainer can only "temporarily" close the road if it unsafe. In that case, if the road is unsafe, the designated maintainer has to make the road safe and re-open it (remove /unlock the gate). This law *does* say that all "open" roads will be public access.


"What this means: The designated maintainer cannot decide who is allowed to use
the road. However, users must meet obligations, such as following road use rules,
and those who do not may be subject to enforcement actions"

So by my reading, yes a lot of gates will disappear.

"Use at Own Risk: Liability to third parties will be limited to instances of misfeasance.
What this means: Unless a designated maintainer or the government has
intentionally or negligently created a hazard that causes another user injury or
vehicle damage, there will be no recourse compensation. This policy will
encourage government to allow more roads to remain open for public use (instead
of being deactivated) when the designated maintainer no longer requires the road.
It is also intended to encourage safer behaviour on resource roads"

Will also get rid of much of the motivation for maintainers to close roads. Currently it is usually liability concerns that mean a gate goes up.
 
Well I just finished commenting on their website about the entire thing, wow that was a long survey, I really hope someone actually reads and considers all the opinions. Took a couple hours yesterday and another 30 minutes today to read through everything and review it.

Believe me, I would love to see something like this (as long as it actually ends up making sense) passed, but as with many previous situations there are ways around it for those that don't want to play ball. Especially in remote areas. Have read about the history of the Gang Ranch, for many years they blocked access to the public roads that passed through their property, and worse yet, they used to block roads to Crown land that they only had grazing rights to. Douglas Ranch is no different even today, they have some gates East of Merritt on a public road that joins the highway, Native land, some public lakes with camp sites and then goes over to another highway. They won't let you pass and make you go around because they don't feel like having people on their "property". It has happened before and will happen again regardless of what piece of paper the government writes. Yes, it will be nice, yes it will be a step in the right direction, but I would not hold my breath that the next day you'll see gates coming down and the welcome mats out front. The back country has its own laws and rules that are unwritten, even in today's times.

If Liability issues would vanish it would be a great day indeed, hopefully it would mean that roads and bridges would remain in place. Also with any luck it would make the dream of an Outdoor Vehicle park for us to play in a more realistic one since liability would not be an issue anymore.

If you haven't, take the time (a lot of time) and submit your opinions to help keep the roads open.
 
Fantom said:
Have read about the history of the Gang Ranch, for many years they blocked access to the public roads that passed through their property, and worse yet, they used to block roads to Crown land that they only had grazing rights to. Douglas Ranch is no different even today, they have some gates East of Merritt on a public road that joins the highway, Native land, some public lakes with camp sites and then goes over to another highway. They won't let you pass and make you go around because they don't feel like having people on their "property".
Click to expand...

Corporate Ranches have been some of the worst offenders. Copper Creek Ranch by Princeton regularly use to close off roads or harass and intimidate recreational users. A couple years ago I was coming off the back side of Copper Mountain (part of their range land - but public land) and found a 6' deep backhoe cut across the road. Had it been dark, I likely would not have seen it. There was no warning sign or pile of dirt left from the digging. I'm pretty sure that they were the most likely people who had the ditch dug.

I am wonder if "range" trails will be included in this definition of Forest Service Road? Almost all these range trails started out as FSRs.

I'll take some time to have a closer read and submit my comments when I get back from Montreal next weekend.
 
Fantom said:
....Also the issue we have is that we, in most cases, go by the roads marked on maps such as the Backroad Mapbooks. Those do not include private land areas, there are many times I've come up to ranches, farms, homesteads that have an FSR on the map heading into the hills and there's a locked gate, private property sign and a guy telling you to go hit the pavement. What are you going to do? argue? He pays his land tax and doesn't want to see yahoos crossing his property and scaring his cattle, doesn't matter if we're nice guys or not. ....
Click to expand...

Well, if it is truely an FSR, then a land owners locked gate is illegal. But, it can be a locked private road that industry has negotiated access with the land owner. Either way, if the farmer doesn't want you to cross, you probably won't convince him otherwise.
 
13B-T BJ60 said:
Ever since Bill 30 (Resource Road Act) faded away back in 2008, there hasn't been much media exposure about the issue.

The topic is alive and well within the government though. For those that haven't thought about it for a while, here is the the current status:

Natural Resource Road Act Project - Province of B.C.

There is a discussion paper link with feedback accepted until mid-December.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. It has the potential to influence my recreational and work life substantially. Hadn't heard about it until this thread.
:beer:
 
canucksafari said:
I'd prefer the way it seems to be done in Washington. At the access point there is a sign which tells the driver that they are about to travel on an unmaintained road and they do so at their own risk.

I would not be against a yearly permit for all off-road vehicles (including those on ATVs and Motor Bikes) that also would require all vehicles to be registered and licensed. I noticed up north that all commercial operaters using industrial roads have to have a separate vehicle identification plate. I'd have no problem with that as a recreational user. It helps provide some accountability. I would like to see any money collected go right back into the resource. Not sure if that's a pipe dream or not.
Click to expand...

I echo these thoughts.

Andrew
 
Thank you for posting this. I spent 3 hours reviewing the document and providing my feedback. I've worked in the forest industry for over 20 years; a NRRA legislation like this has been a long time coming IMHO.

While I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback at these early stages (would have been a good idea for the HST too, no?); the government isn't obligated to act on any of our feedback as this mechanism is for 'information only'.

Now, what would be very cool, is if the 4WDABC could lobby to 'sit at the table' when it comes to drafting the legislation itself. If such an opportunity were to become a reality, I would gladly volunteer for that position.

:cheers:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

IH8MUD Forum | Toyota, Lexus & Off-Road Community
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2026 XenForo Ltd.

© 2000-2026 Tie Rod Media LLC

Back
Top Bottom