Fire Ban Province Wide in Effect

[Red90]

Here is the order: https://wildfire.alberta.ca/wildfire-status/documents/MinisterialOrder-007-2020.pdf

[headdamage]

It does say off-highway vehicles and not vehicles off highway.

Seems like when it would be good to be an OHV we are not and when it is bad to be one we are.



Definition according to: TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT
117(a): %u201Coff-highway vehicle%u201D means any motorized mode of transportation built for crosscountry travel on land, water, snow, ice or marsh or swamp land or on other natural terrain
and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes, when specifically designed
for such travel,
a) 4-wheel drive vehicles
b) low pressure tire vehicles
c) motorcycles and related 2-wheel vehicles
d) amphibious vehicles
e) all-terrain vehicles
f) miniature motor vehicles
g) snow vehicles
h) minibikes, and
i) any other means of transportation that is propelled by any power other then
muscular or wind (but does not include motor boats)
Note: For definition and restrictions that apply to miniature vehicles and minibikes, see the
prohibited miniature vehicles section.
15
Prohibited Operation: An off-highway vehicle may not be operated on any highway, road or ditch unless
permission has been expressly granted. In the case of a provincial highway, the Minister may by %u201Corder%u201D
or %u201Cpermit%u201D authorize such vehicles along any portion of a highway (Traffic Safety Act, Section
120(4)(a)(i) & (ii)). In the case of a municipality, the council of a municipality may, through bylaw,
authorize such vehicles along any portion of a highway (Traffic Safety Act, Section 120(


On another Gov site it says:

Alberta Traffic Act defines an OHV as a(an):
amphibious craft
dune buggies
off-road motorcycles
quads and trikes
snowmobiles
Trucks, jeeps and modified 4x4 vehicles may not be considered OHVs.

[ugly_90]

Section 117 A and E would appear to apply to any landrover driven offroad. The landrover would have been "built for crosscountry travel on land". A Nissan Sentra, less so.

Unless it is a wind powered or pedal-car landrover, you're fine there. A horse-drawn landrover, sans-engine and fuel, it may be compliant as well.

I don't know if Matlock would want to represent you in court after a steep fine against those sections of the law, but one could always try, I suppose.  :o

Perhaps the rules are different for BC, but I don't expect they would be.

[binch]

I still haven't seen anything about random compsites along road right of ways.  :o   So, can't see why I won't be able to use roads like the Conklin winter road or similar road in the Northeast.   Stay off the trails and don't have a fire outside the regs for fires.    That's not too bad by the sounds of it.   But areas like the eastern slopes where everyone and their mothers go.....I can understand trying to curb some of the traffic there.

Right now the hazard is very low as the snows are still melting off and the ground isn't thawed or exposed.    The duff moister code is barely readable right now so ground fires require napalm.    Seems a bit early to call that closure.   All that said....some mild winds combined with clear sky's and constant plus temperatures of 10 or more will eat up that snow pack pretty quick and they poplar/aspen turpentine fires will begin.

It'll be interesting to see what movement begins with the warm weather....like the packs of 30 cyclists we get through our neighborhood.   If you need a hole through them...just cough a few times ::)

[ugly_90]

For a non-industrial user of a haul road, you won't require a user agreement. I've never seen road bans for under 1 ton trucks, and landrovers might be 1/4 ton?

I would assume, after the seasonal commercial traffic is off, a winter road would be 'closed', but we don't have any roads near here like that. On an 'open' road, like the FTR, I suppose you might sleep in your truck at a pullout along the road to sleep, as the truckers do. It might be dusty if there's other traffic. At present, groups would need to be less than 15 people?

The Fort Chipewan winter road closed on March 26, and access to all vehicles is now strictly prohibited.

http://www.rmwb.ca/Municipal-Government/municipal_departments/Public-Operations/Roads/Winter-Roads.htm

[B-Red]

Am interested in achieving the following:
It seems that between few of us here, we uncovered few legislations that define OHVs. However they don't seem to be uniform.
Would you be kind to identify a list of where each definition came from by adding the web link to it. I think it would be a worth while effort to present the government with a request to adapt one standard definition that gets used by all ministries.

I will be happy to work on this if you provide me with the list!

[Trevor]

Am interested in achieving the following:
It seems that between few of us here, we uncovered few legislations that define OHVs. However they don't seem to be uniform.
Would you be kind to identify a list of where each definition came from by adding the web link to it. I think it would be a worth while effort to present the government with a request to adapt one standard definition that gets used by all ministries.

I will be happy to work on this if you provide me with the list!

I would strongly recommend not doing that. In this over-reactive environment, where we are all the "boogey man" and must be locked away, I would wager that the outcome would be in direct opposition to what we are after, or anything that incorporates common sense.

That said, there's an obvious requirement in the Traffic Safety Act that makes it pretty much impossible for any normal road driven 4x4 to be classified as an OHV. And it is ultimately why the references on the government websites that headdamage provided earlier are not at all contradictory. The last statement that trucks et al may not be classified as OHV's is in fact correct imo.

And that is consistent with the Act when you read the entirety of the requirements...albeit in a bureaucratic gobbly-gook sort of way :).

Moreover, it is also consistent with much of their current PLUZ definitions which specifically exclude 4x4's from the OHV classification.

I won't go into it here as this is an open forum to the public, and I really don't want to go into details...what the Act allows and what the current PC era governance style wants could possibly be 2 different things. But suffice it to say I would have no concerns at all using the Traffic Safety Act as my backstop to show that my LR's are not OHV's. And I can provide almost limitless examples of government actions that back that up as well.

...and if they stick with their "the sky is falling" destroy all personal liberties approach to crisis management through the spring and into summer, I can pretty much guarantee I'll get a chance to put this to the test in courts, at which point we will know for sure.

Note: This is in reference to the Traffic Safety Act, not the temporary order they put in place during the dry fire ban period last spring.

[Red90]

So I contacted the minister's office to get clarification on the definition of OHV.  Their current response indicates that they do not know. :)

They said they will get back to me once they talk to others that may know. 

[Red90]

I should add that they rescinded the order banning OHV access and said they are going to regionally implement based on when the snow melts.

[Red90]

Here is a newer poster.

[Matt H]

One way or another it seems to me the events and restrictions over the last several years were always headed in this direction anyway. Today they are calling it a "fire" ban. Sure, ok.  ::)

[binch]

I haven't seen the extended forecast yet but I noticed today that the blackmud creek is at peak!!!    I'll be if I were to go down to a bridge on Saturday I'd see a few kayaks or canoes paddling down it.   We've had three days of plus 9 highs with those steady breezes I was mentioning.   And the ice is breaking up on the big bodies of water.   If this keeps up I'm sure we'll have a "make work fire" (gasoline started) before the end of the month.   Now....just keep your eyes on the poplar buds ;)

Susan received a government info package showing the spread of the bug over the past couple months and with Albertas thin population we are doing pretty well.  But Saskatoon is doing better, and Manitoba is really doing well with the lower numbers.   Maybe a trip up to Otter Rabids or for some fishing if we can get in and it's good to do so.    I guy can always dream..... ::)

[Trevor]

I couldn't quite figure out the root of the governments extremism and idiocy on this one...well, let me re-phrase that, I couldn't figure out how they were piling on 100k first offense penalties for violators. Government idiocy is generally really easy to figure out.

It's Bill 10. I didn't know this little act of tyranny was passed back on April 2. Here's some details...

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-carpay-albertas-bill-10-is-an-affront-to-the-rule-of-law

...and that's where the extremist idiocy of this ban spawned from.

Soooo, what ever existed of the Wildrose party from their merger with the PC's looks like it has been driven out. Bill 10 is about as draconian as things get, and very reminiscent of the old PC mindset. I never liked the idea of the parties merging for this very reason, I really feared the PC's taking over and a return to the bad old days (yeah, I was one of the 5% that voted against it :->).

Hehe, tyranny arises under the guise of a nasty flu bug.

[Red90]

Yep.  They are passing bills without debate now. Ministerial orders with no review. Our own personal dictatorship.

[binch]

aka J.C. Kenny and his blow it up ur arse sunshine band! >:(