Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:10 AM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
So do we throw DU, CWF and SCI under the bus? Seriously, do we? WCS is a broad, broad tent, and that usually means we won't everything a group does.

BTW, I couldn't find anything about suzuki in either the Canadian or the international reports.

Now, back to my original question, what in the report is wrong? Honest question. What is wrong in it?
Wow, what a year. WCS Canada scientists were busy as usual and we have some big results to show for it. Here are just a few highlights of our work in 2018:

A Toronto based conservation organization with a team of scientists funded by private donations. Seems legit. But keep pushing their agenda, it's almost humorous. You on the payroll as well?

You're trolling and your cover is blown. Is it hard keeping all your username and passwords straight?
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:56 AM
243plus 243plus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

Gee, sorry I asked what I thought were legitimate questions. Guess I should stick to cooking forums, where the most controversial thing is if one should use olive oil or canola.

Come on guys, why the piling on? This whole Bighorn thing is as screwed up as it is because the politicians involved changed their stories god knows how many times, and no one trusts them, especially after the Castle debacle.

But does that mean real questions can't be asked? I just don't see it as a bad thing to make sure that the habitat, especially the critical habitat, is maintained, and if that means changes as to how we use it, why does that right away put one in the camp of a Suzuki or other radical group?

At any rate, I'm out of discussion on this topic. I'm not going to be bashed all to hell because I don't do the group think well.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 01-13-2019, 12:33 PM
FQ2 FQ2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 112
Default

243plus thanks for your posts. Too much detail appears to confuse some of the members here.


Your argument is valid in my eyes, the others are just bashing you and getting emotional.





Valid points on both sides, some members here are just white noise.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 01-13-2019, 12:40 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FQ2 View Post
243plus thanks for your posts. Too much detail appears to confuse some of the members here.


Your argument is valid in my eyes, the others are just bashing you and getting emotional.





Valid points on both sides, some members here are just white noise.
How much time have you spent in the area? How much of the area have you actually seen? Are you familiar with all the restrictions already in place in the bighorn backcountry? We could compare answers to these questions.
What exactly are you seeing out there that you believe to be a problem?
Or are you just a bunch of white noise?
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid

Last edited by MountainTi; 01-13-2019 at 12:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 01-13-2019, 12:50 PM
M.C. Gusto M.C. Gusto is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainTi View Post
How much time have you spent in the area? How much of the area have you actually seen? Are you familiar with all the restrictions already in place in the bighorn backcountry? We could compare answers to these questions
Or are you just a bunch of white noise?
I have never been in the area before and I’m curious what are your concerns with the proposal? What are you disagreeing with 243plus about?
As of right now I don’t know enough about this proposal and I’m looking for information from people with legitimate knowledge of this subject.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:09 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.C. Gusto View Post
I have never been in the area before and I’m curious what are your concerns with the proposal? What are you disagreeing with 243plus about?
As of right now I don’t know enough about this proposal and I’m looking for information from people with legitimate knowledge of this subject.
Parks are not needed to accomplish what needs to be done. That is my problem with this proposal.
Gotta run, but if you have any more questions I will be happy to answer at a later time
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:30 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.C. Gusto View Post
I have never been in the area before and I’m curious what are your concerns with the proposal? What are you disagreeing with 243plus about?
As of right now I don’t know enough about this proposal and I’m looking for information from people with legitimate knowledge of this subject.
As MountainTi has said, there already exists a framework to deal with any and all of the concerns which folks are raising. A new structure of parks and the associated commercialization of wilderness areas is not needed in the area. The 43 million being spent on the creation of this debacle could fund 10 or more full time, year round officers dedicated to the region for the next 20 years. Add to that what monies Parks would need as ongoing funding for the maintenance of this new creation ....
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:53 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning View Post
As MountainTi has said, there already exists a framework to deal with any and all of the concerns which folks are raising. A new structure of parks and the associated commercialization of wilderness areas is not needed in the area. The 43 million being spent on the creation of this debacle could fund 10 or more full time, year round officers dedicated to the region for the next 20 years. Add to that what monies Parks would need as ongoing funding for the maintenance of this new creation ....

I wonder how much support for these Parks would be lost if recreational development (serviced campgrounds, upgraded roads, ski hill expansions and hot dog stands) was banned....

I've said it for years.
Among the worst things to happen to a natural area is to turn it into a Park.
Take Writing-On-Stone and the classic example of how turning a natural phenomenon into a Provincial Park leads to utter destruction of what was to be "protected".
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:17 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FQ2 View Post
243plus thanks for your posts. Too much detail appears to confuse some of the members here.
Yes, it certainly seems to, and that appears to be the exact tactic the author of the WCS "study" is relying on - baffle them with bull****. Just like the high school student who doesn't know the answer and will write a page and a half about anything and everything that comes to their mind.

One such example is that which was highlighted by 243plus - 21% grizzly mortality from trains and vehicle collisions. While it may be statistically correct, it is of little relevance to the issue of the report - the greatest number of those mortalities being from trains along the 3 rail crossings of the mountain regions. There are no trains through the Bighorn. An irrelevant statistic. But that didn't stop the author from throwing it in there and it didn't stop 243plus from buying into it.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:20 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
I wonder how much support for these Parks would be lost if recreational development (serviced campgrounds, upgraded roads, ski hill expansions and hot dog stands) was banned....
These types of developments were the common recurring theme throughout all aspects of the survey questionnaire looking for public support.
Reply With Quote
  #281  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:17 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FQ2 View Post
243plus thanks for your posts. Too much detail appears to confuse some of the members here.


Your argument is valid in my eyes, the others are just bashing you and getting emotional.





Valid points on both sides, some members here are just white noise.

Too much detail is typically baffling to most unfamiliar with the information. This is not necessarily a reason to suggest those in opposition to a viewpoint are wrong.


Let's consider the CWS document.

CWS is a membership based group of researchers. Activity and exposure of individual positions within the group is often masked by "majority" rules, in other words politics and biases.

The document Only discloses potential causes of concern, yet never the CWS membership views opposing stated concerns.
This tunnel vision, while potentially valid to degrees, often hides the full picture from view.



Bears and Bulls have been partially discussed. I'll talk about Bighorns, the sheep.


The document relies heavily on Festa-Bianchet's "research", a vigorous opponent to current Bighorn hunting regulations. The document includes all potential concerns, expresses all notes desiring further hunting restrictions, while excluding ALL recent data showing population growth, increased ram ratios and harvest.


The "artist" of this document has painted the picture they desire.


A true art connoisseur, can see the forced nature of the work.
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 01-13-2019, 04:00 PM
M.C. Gusto M.C. Gusto is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning View Post
As MountainTi has said, there already exists a framework to deal with any and all of the concerns which folks are raising. A new structure of parks and the associated commercialization of wilderness areas is not needed in the area. The 43 million being spent on the creation of this debacle could fund 10 or more full time, year round officers dedicated to the region for the next 20 years. Add to that what monies Parks would need as ongoing funding for the maintenance of this new creation ....
I agree with your statement 100%!!
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:31 PM
Yaha Tinda's Avatar
Yaha Tinda Yaha Tinda is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 512
Default

I was quite disappointed that they did not expand the Kiska-Wilson boundary out to the trunk road AND all the way down to the Ya Ha Tinda. This area need more protection and proper management than any other area of the east slopes. Considering they expanded the perimeter to include Medicine Lake, they must have considered it.
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:44 PM
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
Grizzly Adams Grizzly Adams is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 21,399
Default

Both the County and the town of Sundre have sent letters expressing concern. The mayor of Sundre went further, sending Phillips a letter, suggesting if you're in politics better develop a thick skin.

Grizz
__________________
"Indeed, no human being has yet lived under conditions which, considering the prevailing climates of the past, can be regarded as normal."
John E. Pfeiffer The Emergence of Man
written in 1969
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:06 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaha Tinda View Post
I was quite disappointed that they did not expand the Kiska-Wilson boundary out to the trunk road AND all the way down to the Ya Ha Tinda. This area need more protection and proper management than any other area of the east slopes. Considering they expanded the perimeter to include Medicine Lake, they must have considered it.
That would have made a lot of sense.

Some minor degree of hot-dog standing is preferable to wholesale mis-use of the land by the OHVers (of which I am one, enough to see how sideways it's gone anyhow), the "Chop down a whack of live trees for my tent and fire" random campers and industry. Most of the K Country parks are in a lot better shape than the unprotected areas west and east of the trunk road from the Ghost to Hinton (not all of K Country, but most). The Bighorn should have been bigger, but it's at least a start if it gets done. Most Albertans support more parks and protected areas. 50 years ago there was a lot less pressure on the front range of the Rockies, now there are two big and a lot of small cities and a few million people. Time to update things, it's a mess out there. What is in place flat out doesn't work.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:24 PM
crazy_davey crazy_davey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Foothills
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi View Post
Time to update things, it's a mess out there. What is in place flat out doesn't work.
How do you know what is in place doesn’t work? What is already in place has never been enforced...

It wouldn’t be a mess out there if existing laws and regulations were enforced!!!

I was at meetings over 20 years ago where we were asking for exactly that, more enforcement, much more. Nothing was ever done.
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:51 PM
dshaw dshaw is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_davey View Post
How do you know what is in place doesn’t work? What is already in place has never been enforced...

It wouldn’t be a mess out there if existing laws and regulations were enforced!!!

I was at meetings over 20 years ago where we were asking for exactly that, more enforcement, much more. Nothing was ever done.

x2!!!!! Whats needed for these "parks" is not a park at all. Educate people better by holding people responsible for their actions. Higher fines and penalties will travel by word of mouth very fast! higher some more enforcement to enforce the rules and regulations already in place and you will see things be "protected" as they intended to be. The worst thing for these places is to be turned into a park.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:13 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi View Post
Some minor degree of hot-dog standing is preferable to wholesale mis-use of the land by the OHVers (of which I am one, enough to see how sideways it's gone anyhow), the "Chop down a whack of live trees for my tent and fire" random campers and industry. Most of the K Country parks are in a lot better shape than the unprotected areas west and east of the trunk road from the Ghost to Hinton (not all of K Country, but most). The Bighorn should have been bigger, but it's at least a start if it gets done. Most Albertans support more parks and protected areas. 50 years ago there was a lot less pressure on the front range of the Rockies, now there are two big and a lot of small cities and a few million people. Time to update things, it's a mess out there. What is in place flat out doesn't work.
You do realize this is already illegal?? So is littering. So is ripping up stream beds. By your way of thinking, because of the few that choose to break the laws of the hunting and fishing regs, the government you voted in should just shut that down as well? You think funny

Sounds like you already have your piece of heaven down in K-country. You stay there, I'll stay up here. Should be a pretty good compromise
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:19 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
So do we throw DU, CWF and SCI under the bus? Seriously, do we? WCS is a broad, broad tent, and that usually means we won't everything a group does.
Just happened to notice an (most likely informal) poll by SCI red deer regarding the proposed park. 6% yes, 94% no. 11300 votes. Someones getting thrown under the bus
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:22 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_davey View Post
How do you know what is in place doesn’t work? What is already in place has never been enforced...

It wouldn’t be a mess out there if existing laws and regulations were enforced!!!

I was at meetings over 20 years ago where we were asking for exactly that, more enforcement, much more. Nothing was ever done.
Some will never get it. Rational thinking isn't for everyone apparently, they seem to prefer the powers that be do it for them
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:06 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainTi View Post
You do realize this is already illegal?? So is littering. So is ripping up stream beds. By your way of thinking, because of the few that choose to break the laws of the hunting and fishing regs, the government you voted in should just shut that down as well? You think funny

Sounds like you already have your piece of heaven down in K-country. You stay there, I'll stay up here. Should be a pretty good compromise
It’s not the few. It’s the many. When people have to walk they generally stop acting like they’re entitled to ride wherever and cut down whatever. If the current system worked I’d agree with you, but it doesn’t so I don’t. You stay in the places you can ride a quad, I’ll walk in peace, should be a pretty good compromise.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:17 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi View Post
It’s not the few. It’s the many. When people have to walk they generally stop acting like they’re entitled to ride wherever and cut down whatever. If the current system worked I’d agree with you, but it doesn’t so I don’t. You stay in the places you can ride a quad, I’ll walk in peace, should be a pretty good compromise.
You really need to look at a map of the bighorn backcountry. The majority of it is shut down to ohv's and a large portion is designated trails only. You may be thinking of east of the bighorn .
I actually spend the majority of time on the back of a horse further in than you can walk, but have been on the trail systems out there on a quad as well. Everyone should have opportunities to enjoy the area. All kinds of places where you can go do what you wanna do and nothing else is allowed (kcountry) To shut others down so you can enjoy what you do is just plain selfish (see entitled).
en·ti·tled
/inˈtīdld,enˈtīdld/
adjective
adjective: entitled

believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

The hummingbird is a prime example of what it could be like without a "park" designation
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:20 PM
crazy_davey crazy_davey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Foothills
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainTi View Post
Some will never get it. Rational thinking isn't for everyone apparently, they seem to prefer the powers that be do it for them
Exactly!
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:30 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi View Post
It’s not the few. It’s the many. When people have to walk they generally stop acting like they’re entitled to ride wherever and cut down whatever. If the current system worked I’d agree with you, but it doesn’t so I don’t. You stay in the places you can ride a quad, I’ll walk in peace, should be a pretty good compromise.


So you have already walked the whole is the siffleur, the white goat , the black stone, the will more, and others that don’t come to the top of my head right now and so you want to have some new walking adventures in that small portion where quads are not limited? Entitled much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 01-15-2019, 10:51 AM
123dave 123dave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 30
Default

It seems like it would be a really short step to go from banning OHV use to banning hunting. I agree with enforcing the existing regulations. Parks will allow more access for the certain percentage that don't follow the rules.
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 01-15-2019, 11:41 AM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default Lots of Land Left

@mountainti, congrats on getting out lots. @FClightning, the issue is that in most areas where quads are "limited" they actually aren't. Last week I was out in the Ghost, and on multiple cut lines where SRD had tried to block access the quads had worked around it through the woods (and chopping down more trees to do so). There is no viable way to enforce the OHV rules in remote areas like the Ghost and most of the Bighorn. If the quads aren't flat out banned then they will continue to get off the designated routes. Trucks can't do that to the same extent, and seem to generally play by the rules better. Not always, but solvable, and it's easier to stop a truck than a quad (a few of my friend's trucks excepted, but they play nice).

Have a look at the maps in the link below if you haven't already, the areas where OHVs are banned are tiny on the front range. Personally, I'd like to see OHVs allowed in small areas, basically parks for OHVs. Right now it's small areas for parks, and OHVs are allowed in most places.

https://www.albertaparks.ca/media/64...nsolidated.pdf

Finally, banning hunting and banning quads are not the same thing, but they are related. As hunters we really need to clean up the public's perception of us. That's the greatest long term danger to hunting, and the gong show OHV and random camping from "hunters" shapes the public perception far more than the many I know who hunt without trashing the places they hunt. Advocating for continued OHV use in sensitive areas like the Bighorn does not help the image of hunters at all. The times are changing, and either we change too or we'll get written out.
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 01-15-2019, 01:42 PM
crazy_davey crazy_davey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Foothills
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi View Post
There is no viable way to enforce the OHV rules in remote areas like the Ghost and most of the Bighorn.
This statement is complete horse ****!

Guess what, there are places all over North America that rules and regulations are enforced in the backcountry, and they are successful! Why not here in Alberta? Because no one has ever put the effort forward and actually tried...
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 01-15-2019, 02:35 PM
FQ2 FQ2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_davey View Post
How do you know what is in place doesn’t work? What is already in place has never been enforced...

It wouldn’t be a mess out there if existing laws and regulations were enforced!!!

I was at meetings over 20 years ago where we were asking for exactly that, more enforcement, much more. Nothing was ever done.

This is a fine point.


Reading over the last few posts, some members are letting there emotions get the better of them.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 01-15-2019, 02:48 PM
Masterchief Masterchief is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 580
Default

I agree with this as well, can you imagine what $40M would do for enforcement in the Bighorn? even a fraction of that would help an area with an already excellent land use policy but which has little to no enforcement
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 01-15-2019, 03:23 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterchief View Post
I agree with this as well, can you imagine what $40M would do for enforcement in the Bighorn? even a fraction of that would help an area with an already excellent land use policy but which has little to no enforcement
Not only enforcement, but enhancement. Money towards trail systems and maintenance. Has anyone been to the hummingbird? There are designated camp areas there to eliminate the random camping. They are fancy, but they are there to use, and they get used. Little bit of tweaking goes a long ways.
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.