Friday, May 06, 2011
Recently an article in the April 14, 2011 edition of the Pipestone Flyer addressed to the residents of the County of Wetaskiwin No.10 outlined Council’s position for the operation of Off Highway Vehicles in the county.
I have concerns about the lack of an appropriate off vehicle by-law and the enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Section 120(4) (b) of the Traffic Safety Act in the County of Wetaskiwin No.10.
In 2010/2011, I’ve corresponded with my local Councilor, County Enforcement Services, residential tax payers, and local business establishments regarding Council’s position on this. I have been informed that the only way an Off Highway Vehicle would be tolerated on Alberta roadways in the County of Wetaskiwin No. 10, is with a (TEFU) Fuel Tax Exemption, or a (AFFB) Alberta Farm Fuel Benefit number special permit being issued, in particular to Farmers. It also has been brought to my attention that any usage of these recreational vehicles other than on ones own property, would not be tolerated whatsoever. My neighbours and I (mostly retired) have been lead to believe that as responsible tax payers, we cannot even go a short distance in the ditch on our ATV’s (quads). This would be to get our mail on a not well traveled range road. According to credible sources, this word is spreading far and wide. I’m sure that this must have an impact on the County of Wetaskiwin No.10, in particular with the lack of tourists in the Pigeon lake area, which is known as a recreational spot. This must also be affecting the economy of the area, in particular the local business establishments. I also have been made aware that 31 of the surrounding counties who also enforced the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, followed an amended version that they had drafted up. One such example is (A Guide to the Off-Highway Vehicles) pamphlet issued by the County of Leduc. This amended version allows individuals the freedom of utilizing their recreational vehicles in a responsible manner. If they break the law, be it trespassing on private property, utilizing their vehicles on major roadways, speeding, lack of proper registration or insurance, or any other infraction pursuant to the provisions of Section 120 (4)(b), they are charged accordingly. In light of this, could the County of Wetaskiwin not follow the example of these other 31 Counties, by establishing it’s own amended by law? By all means enforce the Traffic Safety Act where deemed necessary and charge those that should be.
Sounds like a fair way to me Steve.
- Letters to the Editor Dear Editor, Hateful Message Is it because she attacks a Christian that a letter writer is given a pass from your rule: "We do not print anonymous letters"? Surely you did not print her letter to make yourself ...
- Letters to the Editor Dear Editor I am deeply disturbed by the hateful message of your "Christianity and Culture" column. I surely hope Margaret Chegwin does not represent your entire publication. Her beliefs seem to be grounded in pure ignorance ...