3. Road Access

"Today's problems cannot be solved if we still think the way we thought when we created them."

Albert Einstein

What are the diverse perspectives on road access? What solutions have been offered up when access leads to pressures from hunting? This section provides some insight into the road access issue, as well as what seems to work well and what does not.

1. Road Access Interview

2. What is access control?

3. What works and what does not

4. Access control techniques used by Tembec

5. Managing Hunting Access

6. Quiz

1. Listen in on an interview about road access issues…

I met with Vince Keenan on June 15, 2004 to learn about Tembec’s perspective on forestry road access. The conversation began with Vince giving a history of forestry road access on the east side. Listen in on his account of what led to the first access road closures by the forest company in the 1980’s:

“A long time ago we built these mickey mouse little gates and we put them on the road, and the purpose for the gates went back to the fire seasons in the 80’s. When fire hazard gets very high, the Ministry of Conservation says nobody is allowed to go into the forest and what they had to do at that time was actually hire people to sit at these roads 24 hours a day and tell people they couldn't go in there. So Conservation said to us, look, would you make a whole bunch of these gates, lock them in an open position, and when the Minister closes the backcountry they can drive around and lock every gate and therefore they don’t have to have people sit there. So we did that.”

Forest Management Licence agreements require that all roads are open for public access. New reasons for reducing access to site specific areas appeared in the 1980’s and 90’s when concerns about increased access to moose, fishing and remote cottage areas came to the forefront. In order to implement access restrictions, Manitoba had to amend the Lands Act to allow the Minister to implement access restrictions. The Happy Lake Road was the first road selected for implementation of the new legislation. Now for Tembec to gain approval to build the road, two conditions had to be met: the Company was to erect a gate preventing motorized vehicles from traveling along the road and the road would be decommissioned once no longer needed. Ensuring the effectiveness of the road closure was a whole other story. Here Vince gives his account:

“So when they first enacted this road closure [at Happy Lake] we put up our typical mickey mouse gate and it was broken into and broken into and they drove over the top of it, anything to get past it. Mostly people wanting to do hunting. So then we built this new heavy duty gate and it keeps most people out. And it is really interesting to watch, when you close a road like this, it’s almost like a game with people…it’s like a call to say I am going to show you I can get past your gate. It is amazing the extent people will go to to get there.”

As Vince’s statement shows, not everyone was happy about the road closures. The conversation soon turned to First Nation perspectives on access restrictions. According to Vince, some First Nations people were not thrilled about the gates because it prevented them from accessing wildlife as part of their treaty rights. The response from Conservation was that they could still hunt there, but needed to take the same routes traditionally taken, not the new logging road route. It becomes clear that new strategies were needed that somehow included a diversity of public views.

The Committee for Moose Management was formed around this time, in 1994, to ensure sustainable management of moose and to act as an advisory committee to government and industry on road management, hunting closures, surveys and hunting seasons. The Committee consisted of First Nations, wildlife organizations, environmental groups, trappers, industry and government. People were concerned about declining moose populations within harvesting areas. Some thought that the harvesting was destroying moose habitat causing the moose to leave the area. Others, particularly the forest company, thought the harvest areas provided good moose habitat which made harvested areas popular hunting spots. To address this controversy, the Committee for Moose Management set up three trials in 1996 at Ryerson Lake, Beaver Creek and Happy Lake. In the first trial, access was left open but no hunting was allowed; in the second, access was restricted to ATV’s and snowmobile’s only but hunting was allowed in the area and in the third, access was restricted and no hunting was allowed. The study found that moose populations increased in all areas but the increase was substantially greater in the area with both access and hunting restrictions. Vince summarized his view of the findings:

“I think it’s important for the fact that access has been determined as being the main detriment to moose populations. I don’t want to say wildlife populations because moose is primarily hunted on these sites. So we know if we build a road and don’t do any access control the moose populations will decline”.

By 2002, Tembec was not longer harvesting in the Happy Lake area and the Moose Management Committee advocated that the area be opened again to hunting, though continuing with access management strategies.

Although the need for road closures was now based on more solid evidence, there are still diverse perspectives on closures. While the roads were closed to prevent hunters, potential cottagers and fishermen from accessing new, remote areas, others such as trappers and wild rice harvesters voiced concern about limited access to their livelihoods. To address such concerns, Tembec began consulting with people at the early stages of planning. Once the operational area was defined, including potential roads, volume of wood and estimated time in the operating area, the company would approach trappers, First Nations, miners and anyone else interested in consulting about road management planning. "The development of Road Management Plans has not resolved these conflicting access desires but it has increased peoples understanding of the issues and reasons for assess controls."

Vince and I then went on to talk about potential moose management schemes, such as hunting management in First Nation communities as outlined in a later section.

2. What is Access Control

 

While Tembec can advocate certain road closures based on community and stakeholder consultations, Manitoba Conservation is ultimately responsible for ordering that the roads be closed, as outlined in the Crown Lands Act and the Wildlife Act.

There are three broad strategies for restricting access on forestry roads including:

1. Access control: closure of a road or restricted access for certain used for a given period of time.

2. Natural abandonment: natural regeneration of a road when it is not maintained. No steps are made to prevent a vehicle from traveling on the road.

3. Physical abandonment: render the road unusable by traffic such as gating, ditching, bridge or culvert removal, digging up the road bed, panning seedlings along road bed and using obstacles such as boulders. This is part of road decommissioning.

There are a number of tools available for creating access control; these are outlined in the following table.

 Access Control Techniques

3. What works and what doesn't

.

A study undertaken in the Temagami Forest Management Unit called "The Road Less Traveled? A Case Study in Temagami" prepared by the Wildlands League and the Sierra Club of Canada reviewed the effectiveness of 21 access control monitored over 10 years. A variety of access controls were used such as signs, cables, gates, bridge removal, ditches and berms. Several access violations were observed throughout the study; for example 94% of 17 sites were violated over a 14 year period. A study of how the violations were made led to the following insights about access control:

1.      Location of access control is important. Water crossings that present a natural barrier are more effective than areas where it is easy to circumvent the crossing.

2.        Permanent barriers are more effective than moveable barriers. Movable barriers such as cables and gates were often broken and required maintenance. Permanent barriers are more effective, especially natural permanent barriers such as stream crossings.

3.      Access controls that combine several strategies are more effective than when just one strategy is used.

4.      Signs are not effective access controls.

5.      Enforcement is difficult. Better compliance could occur with higher fines, more frequent enforcement and public education regarding the rationale of access restrictions.

6.      Multiple routes of entry such as detours defeat the intent of access controls.

7.      Incidence of violation appears to be correlated with travel distance and attractiveness of designation.

8.      Ditches and berms disintegrate quickly due to erosion.

View Full Study (PDF)

4. Access Management used by Tembec

 View a MAP of Tembec’s access control points here.

The following table summarizes Tembec’s access management activities already implemented.

Access Management at Tembec

Location	Access Management
Rainy Lake	-Road management plan in place -Gate control of current operations enacted by Manitoba Conservation.
Beaver Creek	-Road management plan in place -Gate control of current operations enacted by Manitoba Conservation-Hunting closure in current operating area (enacted by Manitoba Conservation) -Access restricted to ATV traffic only in past operating area
Okimaw Lake	-Road management plan in place -Specifically identified Class 3 harvest block access roads to prevent motorized vehicle access
Manigotagan River	-South of Hwy 304 and Wanipigow Lake -Gate control to current locations, enacted by Manitoba Conservation -Culvert removed and berm erected to one completed area within operating area
Garner/Gem Lake	Bridge and culverts removed and road V-plowed to prevent access to entire operating area
Rocky Ridge	Culverts removed and road V-plowed to prevent access to completed portion of operating area
Happy Lake	-Road management plan in place -Gate control enacted by Conservation Manitoba, to current operations -Barricades implemented during inactive operating periods; -Bridge and culverts removed and road V-plowed to prevent access to completed portion of operating area
Sandy River West	Bridge and culverts removed and road V-plowed to prevent access to entire operating area.

Managing Hunting Access Management of moose hunting could be an alternative to access restrictions, as long as the main reason for the restriction is to prevent moose hunting. The goal of developing a management system that works for both licensed hunters and First Nation hunters has put the Moose Management Committee of the Manitoba Model Forest to task. Drawing other First Nation Wildlife Management systems, such as the Great Lakes Indian Fishery and Wildlife Committee, and the Dempster Highway in the Yukon Territory, the committee is developing a plan that involves the distribution of hunting tags to First Nation and licensed hunters alike. First Nations would be able to distribute their tags throughout the community based on needs and community values. The tags could further benefit local economies by using them for tourism and outfitting purposes. The project is currently in a consultation phase. Great Lakes Indian and Wildlife Commission An Inter-Tribal Natural Resource Management commission, this group has developed a system for off-reserve game law enforcement, in cooperation with the State of Wisconsin. The system, which involves specific hunting seasons and game bag limits, is widely accepted by the Intertribal organization. A number of employment opportunities have also resulted from the system. Learn more about this Wildlife Management System   Dempster Highway in Yukon Territory   A unique caribou herd is managed in this region through an agreement between the Gwich’in, Inuvialuit, Vuntut Gwitchin, Nacho Ny’ak Dun and Aboriginal hunters. Seasons open for hunting are specified and there is a licensing criteria for all who hunt along the Dempster Highway. There is also a 500m safe zone, hunting closure on the annual migration corridor and restricted use of snowmobiles, all legally binding. Learn more about the Porcupine Caribou Herd Management Plan and Agreement Learn more about the Porcupine Caribou Herd Satellite Collar Project
Reflection What is your biggest concern when in comes to road access? What changes would you like to see happen to address the issue of road access?
5. Quiz 1. What are the two Acts that allow the Ministry of Conservation to request a road closure? 2. Name four types of access control used by Tembec. 3. Explain the importance of location of access control points. 4. The Moose Management Committee did a study of moose populations in what three regions? Scroll down to see answers   This completes the Road Access tour. You are now encouraged to visit other sections of the site, like a write-up on non-timber forest products.   BACK: Previous Page- Road Management Overview Page NEXT: NEW TOPIC Non-Timber Forest Products
Quiz Answers 1. Lands Act and Wildlife Act 2.Gates, barricades, trenches, no-hunting game refuge, decommissioning3. Access points located on bridges work best because it is difficult to go around them with motorized vehicles. 4. Happy Lake, Rayner Lake and Beaver Creek.