Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
Posts: 64745
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Queen K »

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/203877 ... ackcountry

If I've ever seen a duuuuuuuhhhhhh move it's shutting down the back country.
Want your bags of leaves gone? Put a "free" sign on them out by the road so people can grab them.
62silverado
Posts: 23
Joined: Jun 17th, 2009, 1:15 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by 62silverado »

Don't know how dale mck got "me me me" out of what i said, but the idiots are the "me me me" and they will continue to do what they want ban or no ban. As Sparki 55 says now there are less eyes watching for said idiots.
Spoke with a CO yesterday, there has never been a wildfire incident known to be caused by an ATV, dirt bike or off-roader. Can you say that about smokers ? People break the rules all around us, they run red lights, they don't use there signals, they continue to use there phones while driving etc etc. and as we've seen they have fires during a ban ? I just don't see any solid merit to a ban other than to appease some city dwellers. Again if you want to impose a ban, make it across the board. Get everyone off the lake, off there mountain bikes and hang up there hiking boots. People think its ok to impose a ban for one user group, then it should be fine to impose a ban on all user groups.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
Posts: 5188
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Woodenhead »

I'm loving the weekend warrior ban. Should be permanent. [icon_lol2.gif]
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 49644
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Bsuds »

62silverado wrote:there has never been a wildfire incident known to be caused by an ATV, dirt bike or off-roader.


Maybe not proven but certainly possible. While it may not be the off road bikes etc directly causing a fire it certainly can be caused by those who ride them! Campfires, cigarettes etc.

While it is inconvenient for everyone to ban access to the back country if it stops even just 1 fire it's worth it.
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by johnny24 »

62silverado wrote:Don't know how dale mck got "me me me" out of what i said, but the idiots are the "me me me" and they will continue to do what they want ban or no ban. As Sparki 55 says now there are less eyes watching for said idiots.
Spoke with a CO yesterday, there has never been a wildfire incident known to be caused by an ATV, dirt bike or off-roader. Can you say that about smokers ? People break the rules all around us, they run red lights, they don't use there signals, they continue to use there phones while driving etc etc. and as we've seen they have fires during a ban ? I just don't see any solid merit to a ban other than to appease some city dwellers. Again if you want to impose a ban, make it across the board. Get everyone off the lake, off there mountain bikes and hang up there hiking boots. People think its ok to impose a ban for one user group, then it should be fine to impose a ban on all user groups.


You're trying to apply facts to your arguments? You have to understand your audience here:

Bsuds wrote:Maybe not proven but certainly possible.

User avatar
Drip_Torch
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4025
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Drip_Torch »

62silverado wrote:Don't know how dale mck got "me me me" out of what i said, but the idiots are the "me me me" and they will continue to do what they want ban or no ban. As Sparki 55 says now there are less eyes watching for said idiots.
Spoke with a CO yesterday, there has never been a wildfire incident known to be caused by an ATV, dirt bike or off-roader. Can you say that about smokers ? People break the rules all around us, they run red lights, they don't use there signals, they continue to use there phones while driving etc etc. and as we've seen they have fires during a ban ? I just don't see any solid merit to a ban other than to appease some city dwellers. Again if you want to impose a ban, make it across the board. Get everyone off the lake, off there mountain bikes and hang up there hiking boots. People think its ok to impose a ban for one user group, then it should be fine to impose a ban on all user groups.


"never been a wildfire incident known to be caused by an ATV, dirt bike or off-roader" - what? Are you sure he wasn't being sarcastic with you? I'll suggest those fires are quite a bit harder to prove, but they sure do happen. Seriously, I've started two fires with a fire truck while working wildfires.

That point aside, I hear what you are saying and I'm even onside with your position to a certain extent. I agree, it's a good thing to have responsible backcountry users keeping an eye out for the irresponsible types. Under these smoky conditions initial public reports of fire starts are a good thing, and not having people woods might slow initial reports.

However, these conditions are kind of unique. The build up index, from what I understand, is approaching or surpassing historic high levels leading to an extremely dynamic fire situation. Sure, in the Okanagan we may be sitting at 4, or high, in most stations, but we're also sitting in some fairly stagnant air and have been enjoying some relatively high humidity readings under this smoke blanket. All of that will change quite quickly with the approaching front and once the air starts moving things have a very real potential to become quite a bit worse, before it becomes any better.

I noticed the sentence regarding winds in the news release, and I'm left with the impression that the concern is focused more around public safety, than potential to cause new starts. I suspect, we simply don't have an abundance of resources sitting around right now, and the initial attack capability in the Okanagan is being maintained right on the margins.

Bottom line, if this front brings winds and lightening, we're probably going to need those resources focused on initial attack and not being diverted to rescuing public in the backcountry.

My opinion, FWIW, winds of 30 k or more... shut it down and abandon the woods for a few days. Inconvenient, maybe, but prudent from a public safety point of view.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
Sparki55
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3433
Joined: Feb 24th, 2013, 1:38 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Sparki55 »

Woodenhead wrote:I'm loving the weekend warrior ban. Should be permanent. [icon_lol2.gif]


Based on what reason? One's opinion on the topic doesn't matter. Restricting people from participating in an outdoor activity simply because it bothers someone else without interfering in their life, carries no merit. People using the backcountry are not directly related to the amount of forest fires.

I would happily have my vehicle, and toys, inspected by the province once a year and display a sticker on my licence plate showing compliance to such a law. Proof that my vehicle will not cause a fire or any other damage to the outdoors. Then the real issue becomes hiring more conservation officers to patrol, ticket and jail people who start fires during the fire season.

Note the cost of the inspection will be covered by the taxpayers, free of charge to the user so more vehicles are inspected and people abide by the laws; same as drug users get a free site and needles to reduce public harm.
Silverstarqueen
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18209
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Silverstarqueen »

It's true, fires are not commonly started by motor vehicles. But we can't seem to ban smokers, they get offended. We can't seem to ban campfires, people do it anyway. Well some people being sloppy or careless with fire, are starting quite a few of these fires, and they got to where they were, usually with a motor vehicle. So it seems that we now have to ban every person driving something in the backcountry, in order to stop the few who can't seem to keep their fires, flames, burning habits out of the back country.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
Posts: 5188
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Woodenhead »

Silverstarqueen wrote:Well some people being sloppy or careless with fire, are starting quite a few of these fires, and they got to where they were, usually with a motor vehicle. So it seems that we now have to ban every person driving something in the backcountry, in order to stop the few who can't seem to keep their fires, flames, burning habits out of the back country.


Yep. :up:
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
Sparki55
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3433
Joined: Feb 24th, 2013, 1:38 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Sparki55 »

Woodenhead wrote:
Silverstarqueen wrote:Well some people being sloppy or careless with fire, are starting quite a few of these fires, and they got to where they were, usually with a motor vehicle. So it seems that we now have to ban every person driving something in the backcountry, in order to stop the few who can't seem to keep their fires, flames, burning habits out of the back country.


Yep. :up:


Some people buy alcohol and then go driving, so it seems we need to ban all alcohol sales in order to stop the few who can't seem to stop drinking and driving.

Some people don't properly dispose of their needles after injecting drugs, so it seems we need to ban all drugs to stop the few who leave needles everywhere. Oh wait... we did ban drugs.

The mentality to ban the activity because a few offend is ridiculous. The only sensible comment so far was to keep people out due to the issue of possibly needing to evacuate them quickly and disrupting real fire efforts.

There's no swaying your opinion just like there is no swaying mine. Enjoy your time in town and I'll go enjoy my fishing. :130:
User avatar
Catsumi
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10660
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Catsumi »

May 1st, 2016, 4 P.M. smoke is spotted along an ATV trail near Ft. MAc

10:00 P.M. Emeegency declared, people start to evacuate

Cause: ATV on a trail normally used, however conditions were very warm, dry and dusty landscape and winds at 70 km

Cost: 5 billion bucks and counting

Area burned: 600,000 hectares

Source: Ryerson University study of disaster response. 2016
“A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.” - Mark Twain

“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” – Edward Abbey
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
Posts: 5188
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Woodenhead »

Sparki55 wrote:Enjoy your time in town and I'll go enjoy my fishing. :130:


I'm not in town, I live in the back country.
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
skydawg
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3329
Joined: Feb 6th, 2005, 3:05 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by skydawg »

Maybe not proven but certainly possible. While it may not be the off road bikes etc directly causing a fire it certainly can be caused by those who ride them! Campfires, cigarettes etc.

While it is inconvenient for everyone to ban access to the back country if it stops even just 1 fire it's worth it.


Same can be said about the people still allowed up there with vehicles. Nice try though
User avatar
ferri
Forum Administrator
Posts: 53684
Joined: May 11th, 2005, 3:21 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by ferri »

Just so you know:

The average light off temperature at which the catalytic converter begins to function ranges from 400 to 600 degrees F. The normal operating temperature can range up to 1,200 to 1,600 degrees F. But as the amount of pollutants in the exhaust go up, so does the converter's operating temperature.

http://www.aa1car.com/library/converter.htm
“Weak people revenge. Strong people forgive. Intelligent people ignore.”
― Albert Einstein
Silverstarqueen
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18209
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Off Road Vehicle Restrictions Including Okanagan

Post by Silverstarqueen »

Silverstarqueen wrote:Well some people being sloppy or careless with fire, are starting quite a few of these fires, and they got to where they were, usually with a motor vehicle. So it seems that we now have to ban every person driving something in the backcountry, in order to stop the few who can't seem to keep their fires, flames, burning habits out of the back country.



Sparki55 wrote:Some people buy alcohol and then go driving, so it seems we need to ban all alcohol sales in order to stop the few who can't seem to stop drinking and driving.

Some people don't properly dispose of their needles after injecting drugs, so it seems we need to ban all drugs to stop the few who leave needles everywhere. Oh wait... we did ban drugs.

The mentality to ban the activity because a few offend is ridiculous. The only sensible comment so far was to keep people out due to the issue of possibly needing to evacuate them quickly and disrupting real fire efforts.

There's no swaying your opinion just like there is no swaying mine. Enjoy your time in town and I'll go enjoy my fishing. :130:

My opinion has already been swayed. I couldn't figure out why we all had to be restricted just because a few smokers or campers have to light up the whole joint. Well the fires just keep happening, and still there are people who are not getting the message. So how many homes, livlihoods, communities, country sides have to be burned up before we come up with a plan to reduce the cause, which is people who are trucking/biking into the bush and don't give a damn?

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”