Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo
Do you know the history of hunting in this area before and after/during Kananaskis and all the connected parks were created?
If you do, you should acknowledge that hunting has been severely restricted since these parks were made. To say that "Kananaskis has allowed hunting since it was created", while correct, ignores the fact that since its creation, hunting has been severely and continuously restricted.
Now the comment on hunters being "vehemently opposed to any steps taken to conserve the Bighorn" really highlights your bias (unintended or not). That is a garbage comment that you know is false, grow up. 
Back to the Castle, beyond access changes, hunting season length and harvest allocations have yet to be tackled by Parks. But this will happen and then people will see that Parks and their supporters, ignorant or not, promoted eliminating hunting opportunity for the sake of their precious park.
Anyone that can understand government speak will see the writing was on the wall. Supporting these parks, including Wildland Parks, is supporting further restricting and eliminating hunting. |
My point was that Kananaskis has been around for 40 years and that hunting is still permitted. Are there more restrictions than before the parks existed? Yes, but to suggest that the creation of Kananaskis was synonyms with the elimination of hunting is simply not true. You obviously know that, and were being hyperbolic to make your point. I can concede that Parks do come with the potential for hunting restrictions and the possibility of elimination (although I would argue elimination has not been a serious issue to this point), but I do not accept that the creation of wildland parks seals our fate as hunters either. The Wildland experience in Alberta does not bare this out.
As far as your selective quotation of my comment regarding hunters and conservation, I don't have much to say. The point was really not that hunters are against conservation, but that the world has evolved and hunters are more under scrutiny than ever before. I only suggested that we should consider the perception created within the non-hunting public when hunters stand-up against conservation initiatives that by all accounts secure habitat and wildlife as a consequence. It is hard to say publicly we are for the animals and the areas in which they live when we push against initiatives that (IF DONE CORRECTLY) can preserve our lifestyle and provide greater protection for habitat.
The key is that we engage the proposal (rather than conspiracy theories), while at the same time evaluating it against what the government has already done in the Castle. I am not advocating that we take the government at its word, I only suggest that we don't rely on transparently deceptive or one sided rhetoric being spread by a vocal minority that appears to have other interests in mind than hunting and fishing.
These issues are nuanced and serious discussion is warranted within our ranks. I truly value input like yours because it comes across as well thought out and considered. I may not agree with you entirely, but your contributions are certainly more productive than others who traffic in insults, straw man arguments, and misinformation. We are all on the same team regardless of whether we agree on every individual issue....Bighorn included.
My concern continues to be the lack of clarity from the NDP, particularly with what has gone on in the Castle Wildland (huts, trail closures etc.).