Letter to the Editor:
Through your paper, I am asking your readers to please be aware that Council is once again being asked to consider expanding the use of off-road vehicles onto township roads and road allowances. I urge readers to contact your Council members if you feel that the right to the quiet enjoyment of your residence is more important than the right of owners of off-road vehicles to ride on roads. Please consider whether the safe use of roads for automobiles and farm vehicles is more important than the use by off-road vehicles which come with a warning that they are not intended for use on roads.
This particularly applies to ORVs that are being ridden for enjoyment. The benefits alleged to result from increased use of ORVs cannot compensate for increased CO2 release. At their last meeting, Council decided to postpone a decision on this issue. They will break the decision making process into a series of smaller steps. If your area is not considered at this time, it is still appropriate to comment in general. Somebody may need your help now, just as you may need his or her help later.
Of all the reasons that I have been given for allowing ORVs on roads, the only ones that resonate with me are the use of ORVs to do chores around the home and neighbouring properties, such as collecting wood and planting trees, or to move snow for shut-in neighbours. If Council members are choosing to move forward with ORVs on roads, please encourage them to start with the above group, of neighbourhood workers, and develop a system to monitor the impact over the next twelve years before taking the next step for recreational users. At the end of the twelve years, as projected by the IPPC, we should have a clearer indication of whether CO2 levels have started to drop. By that time, ORV workers will have had time to decide whether a tractor would be a more appropriate implement.
John Fallis, Millbrook resident
