Anyone else in Canada having this problem?

[Dogleg]

I've come across a few cases of signage abuse. Last year I came across a "no hunting past this point, logging operations" sign.This was on crown land. The trouble was there was no logging operation there, and no signs to show where the imaginary logging operation ended. One sign can block access from there to Manitoba? What I was able to find was some outfitter's baited whitetail stands though. Anybody can buy a sign.
In another area of crown land that we have hunted for years, an outfitter has a hay lease. He used that to post crown land from hunting. Saskatchewan law prohibits outfitting behind signs, which everyone knew he was doing. Knowing that either the sign was illegal or that his outfitting there was, I drove in to look around, wave at him and try to get reported. All I got was a dirty look. Next I went to the SERM office to see if my "confession" would land me in court. That's a story I would love to tell the judge. Didn't work though, and I'm still a free man.
I've seen barb wire fences strung across old logging roads built with tax payers dollars too. Taking a back-hoe and making roads impassable is a pretty good trick. If the fish cops did it, it would be different but when its a logging company restricting access to public land that they neither own or are even using they can go to H*ll. Trenches shovel back in, and quads can usually find another way into the bush and the old trail system. Hunters have chainsaws too.
I'm not promoting trespassing, but signs aren't always what they appear. Last year we found "No hunting" signs put up on private land we had permission to hunt on. The owner didn't even know that they were there, someone else that had asked permission decided to post it for themselves. They don't hunt there anymore.

 

[bone-collector]

#1 when the cops pick a guy up for shooting a lowbed truck and he has a 300wm on him sorry Gibbs bud that was just bad
#2 just asuming that signs are fake because you heard it in the bar or from a buddy can lead to you being in serious trouble, if you think a sighn is BS then call someone and find out dont just go rambo past it , pretty common sence , there will always be tommorow to hunt that spot, but today may land you in a world of trouble !


its pretty obvious (around here) were active logging is and isnt , maybe in the bigger centers like Prince Goerge or van there is a problem with fake signs etc, there may be the odd occation a company pulls out of a block and forgets there ctive logging sign, but it dosnt say no tresspass or no hunting just active logging , a vhf radio can resolve that by asking someone or a phone call to the mills or forestry , we have had 1 or 2 outfitters try and chase folks off , but that never works either,

look at the obvious when entering a new road system that you dont know:

-how well does it looked traveled ?
-is thhere sets of dual tire marks in the dirt everywere ?
-has the road been freshly graded ?
-stop at the bottom of a hill and listen for a bit , do you hear engine brakes barking down the hills somewere ?
-is there alot of debree on the road like bark and crap that normaly falls off a truck ? is it new or been there for a while (like soggy and wet) ?
-always keep a eye open for pullouts , the ditch can be your enamy and ruin your hunt
-70kmph is the maximum speed limit on several roads, 80kmph on better roads with nuff room to pass

radio/scanner talk :

for folks with radios or intended on getting them:

when entering a road you must call the road name+empty+type of vehicle

when loaded you must call the road name+loaded+km sign you are at and if you are a pick-up call that at the end

ex: maxan road 12 km loaded pick-up
ex: empty on the maxan road or maxan zero empty

-loaded = traffic is coming down in kms from the back to the front of the road
-empty = means entering a new road or spur road
-empty with a load = 2 way hauling is in effect
-loaded trailer up = a log truck NOT hauling logs just heading home without a load
- empty/loaded rack = hayrack trailer on the road system , takes more space to make corners than normal pull trailers do
- public/pick-up traffic= required to call loaded signs just like log trucks do but say loaded PICK-UP

loaded trucks are required to call every 2kms ( 10-8-6 etc)
empty traffic calls only when entering a road system or when a sign requires them to do so , they pull off for the loaded traffic

if you hear a loaded coming take a pullout within 2-3kms of it, its only a couple minute wait and they will be gone by

some more dangerous roads (here now) have the pullouts marked and a distance to the next pullout sigh in them for added safety

if you do NOT have a radio or scanner.... follow a loaded or empty truck they will call for you , if you see a truck pulled over in a pullout dont be afraid to ask were are the trucks coming from, how many trucks, or is there any side roads safe to hunt on and what time does the road quiet down .
you would be suprised to how many drivers apretiate that sort of curtosy and will help you out

if you see someone vandelizing or stealing from a logging company get there plate number and call it in or let a trucker know the plate number and auto description so the company can follow it up with the rcmp

simple things like I have listed will save hunting areas from gates for years to come, but as it is now companies would rather just gate it off and say there problem solved (its the easiest sollution) is it fair to you ? probably not but that #### that just caused a accident or did something stupid will ruin it for everyone )

dont be afraid to PM cgn members in the areas you would like to hunt and ask if they know whats happening in the bush, I have said it twice and will say it again I have no problem with giving a hand figuring out were the logging is and isnt in this area , takes 1/2 hour in the evening and way you go to have a great trip


without changing the topic or confussing people Stubble I know what you mean , in BC we do NOT haul off highway loads down the highway like they do out there , thats insain and yes DANGEROUS , here with proper permits we are aloud 5 meters overhang from the last bunk 15 feet isnt bad and dosnt sag down as there is realy onlt about 10-12 feet of overhang past the last set of tires

 

[Calum]

Good input Bone Collector, and I'm still amazed at how some of you logging truck drivers can manage them big trucks down them tiny roads.

I had a hard enough time in an unloaded F-250 4x4.

I also found the pullouts to be ones friend...you never want to have to back down one of them roads on a Hill.

And the cardinal rule is it is not right of way but right of weight.

 

[svt-40]

This whole thread reeks of 'corporations have rights, individuals have duties' mentality.

 

[Foxer]

This whole thread reeks of 'corporations have rights, individuals have duties' mentality.

Corporations DO have rights. They have the right to the property they own or have leased, same as you or I do. They're legal entities.

We DO have a duty of care in how we conduct ourselves. You may think of it as some sort of onerous 'duty' not to shoot up other people's property, but personally i don't have a problem with that kind of 'duty'

And not running people off the road or getting oneself killed is a responsibility, if not a duty per se.

I notice tho that you try to make the argument by nameing 'faceless' corporations. But it's real flesh and blood drivers in those trucks, with real live families who want to see them come home at night. Yeah, corporations are there to make money but as you've heard, it's often the real people who pay the price when others don't respect the rules.

 

[bone-collector]

This whole thread reeks of 'corporations have rights, individuals have duties' mentality.

hmmm , and we have a winner for screwitupforeveryone award

 

[Calum]

But there is more to this...
http://www.timberwest.com/PDF/Neighb...pring_2006.pdf

So lets see:
Buy land cheap from government, pillage natural resources from land, sell land in nice subdivision size parcels, claim that a service is being provided for development where there is a strong demand.

This might explain why there has been a hold on tree planting in some areas.

 

[Foxer]

But there is more to this...

Dead link bud - I think it's being truncated .. try typing it in without the www. so that we can see the whole link.

Buy land cheap from government, pillage natural resources from land, sell land in nice subdivision size parcels, claim that a service is being provided for development where there is a strong demand.

This might explain why there has been a hold on tree planting in some areas.

Yeah - how terrible would it be if they were selling land to developers to build homes for people. That'd be aweful.

I take it you're living in a tent at the moment?

The other option is for developers to just buy the land and knock down the trees and build homes. How is that any better?

And none of it has anything in the slightest to do with what happens on the roads while their logging, or to their gear. I doubt very much the handful of hunters causing problems are doing so out of protest for the company's corporate policies.

People buy and sell land for development all the time. New houses and buildings have to go somewhere. Shy of stopping new building on the island, how do you propose to prevent it?

 

[stubblejumper]

-is there alot of debree on the road like bark and crap that normaly falls off a truck ? is it new or been there for a while (like soggy and wet) ?

Unfortunately this situation is not limited to our logging roads.Gravel trucks are required to use covers over their loads so as not to have loose gravel flying on our highways,people are fined for throwing garbage from vehicles ,yet logging trucks are constantly losing bark and debris that does strike vehicles and litter our highways.It should be the resposibility of the logging companies to find a way to contain their loads like everyone else is required to do.Just as we should be responsible in logging areas,they should be responsible on our highways.

 

[Calum]

People buy and sell land for development all the time. New houses and buildings have to go somewhere. Shy of stopping new building on the island, how do you propose to prevent it?

Your right it is pointless, but wait until your hunting spots get wiped out.

 

[svt-40]

Corporations DO have rights. They have the right to the property they own or have leased, same as you or I do. They're legal entities.

Of course, but only if they own or lease and the terms of lease allow them to fence the area.

We DO have a duty of care in how we conduct ourselves. You may think of it as some sort of onerous 'duty' not to shoot up other people's property, but personally i don't have a problem with that kind of 'duty'

And not running people off the road or getting oneself killed is a responsibility, if not a duty per se.

I notice tho that you try to make the argument by nameing 'faceless' corporations. But it's real flesh and blood drivers in those trucks, with real live families who want to see them come home at night. Yeah, corporations are there to make money but as you've heard, it's often the real people who pay the price when others don't respect the rules.

That has to be dealt on individual basis: someone commits an offence - call police and deal with them. Or establish a law. People above said that the logging companies do not own all land they lock up. Settles the argument as far as I am concerned.
You think that I did not have to deal with that #### in my life? Moscow mayor wanted to implement parking fees. Problem was, by federal law roads were public and stopping and parking was regulated by the traffic act. Parking is either allowed or not, there is a sign for that. He tried to put 'No parking' signs along the streets and collect money. Smart people parked and did not pay, cause there was no way to enforce and collect. He tried to tow and got sued. His goal was good - to remove congestion in downtown. But he chose to break the law, did not get him anywhere.

Same here - it works both ways. For now they are screaming safety of the loggers, but I hear it different - safety of both loggers and hunters or other land users whatsoever. Sounds like the loggers feel superior.

 

[Foxer]

Your right it is pointless, but wait until your hunting spots get wiped out.

Well i was thinking that a more pro-active approach might work better. I've been mulling over the idea of talking to the BCWF and gov't about including a blurb about how to deal with logging roads more effectively and safely in the core training and/or in the synopsis and maybe trying to work a little closer with the forest companies.

The problem right now is the easiest thing for them to do in order to deal with these issues is to shut down access. And when it's about workers saftey, they get a lot of pressure whenever someone's injured. If we can show alternate ways and work with them a bit they may be willing to resolve the issue another way. But it'll take a bit of work on our part.

Threads like this can help too - when people understand the truckers have some legitimate fears and concerns, and that incidents have actually occured, it can help spread the word that there's a real problem and we have to be a little careful when we're in an active logging area.

 

[Gatehouse]

Unfortunately this situation is not limited to our logging roads.Gravel trucks are required to use covers over their loads so as not to have loose gravel flying on our highways,people are fined for throwing garbage from vehicles ,yet logging trucks are constantly losing bark and debris that does strike vehicles and litter our highways.It should be the resposibility of the logging companies to find a way to contain their loads like everyone else is required to do.Just as we should be responsible in logging areas,they should be responsible on our highways.

Agreed.

Why is it that logging trucks can dump debris all over the highway wiht little repercussion, yet if I chuck a Starbucks cup out the window, I am fined $2000? (Not that I would)

There is always bark and crap falling off the trucks, and sometimes it is airborne long enough to land on a vehicle that it travelling behind (no, not tailgating or "following too closely") Not that it should matter, since it should be a truckers responsabiity to secure his load- all of it.

Many of the trucks I see sure seem to be WAY overloaded. I guess the commercial transport guys agree, since they always seem to be pulling over trucks and weighing them.

 

[Gatehouse]

People above said that the logging companies do not own all land they lock up. Settles the argument as far as I am concerned.

Settles it fo me, too. Public land is for the PUBLIC.

Just as highways and roads are closed at times due to construction, it is reasonable to close logging roads at times for active logging /safety. It is not reasonable to lock off a road on public land when these activities are not occuring.

If vandalism/theft is a concern, hire a watchman, like they do on construction sites. The general pubic should not be preveted form acessing public land, so that a loggin company can save a few labour dollars. And it will keep some people employed, which is a good thing.

 

[Foxer]

People above said that the logging companies do not own all land they lock up. Settles the argument as far as I am concerned.

Settles it fo me, too. Public land is for the PUBLIC.

All land is public. Even your home. Nobody owns land in Canada except the crown.

All we can own is an interest in the land. It may be fee simple, as with the avergage house, or it may be a lease - which has it's own rights (or some other form of title). The terms of the title guarantee what rights that user has.

Likewise, there's legislation as to what people can do with roads on thier property. And what the responsibility of various end users is with regards to maintaining and allowing access to those roads.

Your land is crown land gatehouse - you just have the right to use it. Would you expect people to be allowed to come onto your property and shoot a deer off your balcony without your permission? I should think not. You might be a nice guy and ALLOW them to, but if they started causing trouble or damaging things, i'd guess you'd probably start saying 'no, i don't think so.'

Some logging concerns just own the trees and lease the land, some own the land (as in the case calum mentioned where they buy it, harvest it and sell it) and there are other 'arrangements' as well. You can't dismiss it with some sort of communist statement that all land should be for the people. Those companies own an interest in the land, same as you own an interest in your property. The terms of that interest determine what their rights are on that land.

 

[Gatehouse]

Some logging concerns just own the trees and lease the land, some own the land (as in the case calum mentioned where they buy it, harvest it and sell it) and there are other 'arrangements' as well. You can't dismiss it with some sort of communist statement that all land should be for the people. Those companies own an interest in the land, same as you own an interest in your property. The terms of that interest determine what their rights are on that land.

SOme logging companies (specifically on south VI) OWN the land. This si thier private proeprty and as far as I am concerned can do what they want with it. It's nice if they can work out a system with hunters and fishermen for acess, to create a win win situation, but it's thiers to do as they choose.

Very few that I am aware of have a Crown "Lease" where they can control acess to that part of Crown land.

The majority of the logging in the rest of the province is done on Crown land. loggers pay stumpage fees to harvest the trees. They are not paying to lease/control the land, just paying for the trees.

 

[Foxer]

Very few that I am aware of have a Crown "Lease" where they can control acess to that part of Crown land.

The majority of the logging in the rest of the province is done on Crown land. loggers pay stumpage fees to harvest the trees. They are not paying to lease/control the land, just paying for the trees.

I think you misunderstand how the system works.

If, as you claim, there's no land use agreement and it's just based on stumpage, what's to stop me or you from going in there and harvesting trees and paying the stumpage ourselves?

And why would there be ANY restrictions or rules on what roads they do or dont' build, or do or don't block off if the do build 'em? Want into that area, build your own road

Obviously they do operate under a lease. They also have responsibilites with regards to their roads. The details of their lease and other agreements spell out what their rights and responsibilities are.

 

[Gatehouse]

I think you misunderstand how the system works.

If, as you claim, there's no land use agreement and it's just based on stumpage, what's to stop me or you from going in there and harvesting trees and paying the stumpage ourselves?

It's not really a *land* use agreement, more like a *tree* use agreement, called a Tree Farm Licence. (TLF) What prevents you and I form going and harvesting the trees is that we don't own the TLF, the logging company does. We can go and buy a TLF or bid on one, though.

The TLF gives the company the right to harvest the timber. Much of the loggable land is broken up into TLF's, which come up for sale periodicaly, depneding on the FOrestry management plan for that particular area.

A TLF gives them the right to prevent others from harvesting trees, it doens't give them the right to prevent someone from walkign/driving/biking/riding through thier TLF.

And why would there be ANY restrictions or rules on what roads they do or dont' build, or do or don't block off if the do build 'em? Want into that area, build your own road

Road building is covered by the Forest Practices Code. There are all sorts of restrictions on how roads are built- There are also terms for stumpage when road buiding (I believe they pay less stumpage to the Crown [us] for trees they have extracted during road building)

Obviously they do operate under a lease. They also have responsibilites with regards to their roads. The details of their lease and other agreements spell out what their rights and responsibilities are

If they operate under a lease that allows them to prevent acess to Crown land by the public (other than as I said above, due to active logging/safety issues) then I'd be interested in seeing it. I'm not aware of any logging lease that does that, athough you can get Crown Leases such as that. Some shooting ranges are on Crown Lease, mines operate under a Mining lease, etc.


I'm not even sure if they can actually legally prevent you from acessing a road during logging operations, although it wouldn't be unreasonable, if they are actually falling etc at the time. And it's probaby a safer idea for everyone if you keep clear.

 

[Foxer]

It's not really a *land* use agreement, more like a *tree* use agreement, called a Tree Farm Licence.

Of course its a land use agreement. Just like grazing rights are a land use agreement, not a 'grass agreement'. Even the use of airspace ABOVE your land is a land use agreement (and yes - people do sell their airspace.)

How could they build roads, stand on the land, occupy the land for making base camps etc, without an agreement to use the land?

A TLF gives them the right to prevent others from harvesting trees, it doens't give them the right to prevent someone from walkign/driving/biking/riding through thier TLF.

Is that your legal opinion

It gives them the right to conduct forestry activities and to make roads under very specific conditions, and that legally precludes others from interfering with that. But more importantly, it does involve an agreement with the roads - you can perhaps cut your own road in (if the gov't lets you) and no one may block it, OR you could just walk thru the woods, but use of those roads is not 'public' until such time as those roads revert back to the public domain.

Road building is covered by the Forest Practices Code. There are all sorts of restrictions on how roads are built- There are also terms for stumpage when road buiding (I believe they pay less stumpage to the Crown [us] for trees they have extracted during road building)

Partially - but not entirely. And there's the FOREST SERVICE ROAD USE REGULATION that came out in 2004. Which says in part:

Traffic control devices
6 (1) A district manager or an official may cause a traffic control device to be erected on a forest service road if, in the district manager's opinion, restrictions on the use of the road or the traffic on the road are required to achieve the purposes of section 4 (b) and (c) of the Ministry of Forests Act.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a traffic control device may be used in any of the following ways:
(a) to close the road to all traffic or to specified categories or sizes of motor vehicles including those not engaged in commercial activities;
(b) to close the road totally, or for a specified period of time;
(c) to regulate the movement of traffic;
(d) to require the use of 2-way radio systems during certain hours in order to coordinate the movement of traffic, including specifying the radio frequency to be used on portions of forest service roads;
(e) to restrict the use of vehicles having characteristics that could damage the forest service road or create a safety risk;
(f) to warn drivers of hazardous or unusual conditions existing on forest service roads.

So a forestry company complains, says "we want the road closed to non-commercial traffic" and the local official says 'sure'.

Which they will tend to do when a bunch of wives come to beat the snot out of him because someone's hubby got hurt or worse.

Nor can 'anyone' build a road. Again - the rights and responsibilities are spelled out in the terms of the agreement for the use of that land. If the terms say 'as per the forestry practice code" or "in accordance with the governing laws" or such then that's fine - they might ALSO say "except where..." etc. The gov't can make 'exceptions' where it feels like it. Just like municipal code - they can choose to waive a by-law if there's cause.

And if i'm not mistaken part of it is covered under the highway act, or whatever they call it now. And certanly under the motor vehicle act.

As i said to begin with - the agreement for use will spell out the details.

What it boils down to is that the company has the right to use that land to harvest wood. If something interferes with that, then it's interfereing with their use and enjoyment of the land as per their agreement and they have recourse.

So we've got to look at how to work with them to make sure they Don't have a whole lotta problems and don't feel the need to go thru the time and expense of shutting a road down to non-commerical traffic.

 

[bone-collector]

hmm, well been a buisy day round here and I thought 13 hours in my truck was good ...... well Stubble and Clarke Ill start debarking my logs when you get hay trucks to start wrapping hay and cattle trucks to shrink wrap cows so there SH!T dosnt fly out of the sides of the trailer and all over my porche and when fish trucks use air fresheners and when some races are banned from cutting holes in the floors and using the highway as a toilet !

oh yea and there is no way a peice of BIODEGRATABLE bark would fly back far nuff to hit you unless you were following to closly.....2 seconds @ 100kmph is 2 power poles which is 200 meters

People above said that the logging companies do not own all land they lock up. Settles the argument as far as I am concerned.

yup yer buddy says its ok it must be, p!ss on the laws

For now they are screaming safety of the loggers, but I hear it different - safety of both loggers and hunters or other land users whatsoever. Sounds like the loggers feel superior.

@ 58,000kgs your dam rights I am superior on the road but hey wtf you could always go HOME and deal with the parking lot issues that could save lives and peoples rights to hunt


and thanks Foxer for the laws on road use, guess we can close em down, keep flapping there svt, Im sure the real hunters apretiate your attitude afterall its guys like you that the gates get put up in some places in the first place