Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:32 AM
Freddy Freddy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 71
Default

https://youtu.be/eePDRkf2jXc
More mistrust
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:11 AM
oiler_nation oiler_nation is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_davey View Post
I sure hope you’re right on them being punted Jamie... But I’m highly doubting it right now.



People are stupid and get sucked in by this crap. It’s very apparent in this thread here, and on others as well.



It won’t be long before I can say, “I told you so”. And at that point, most of what you loved about the West Country is long gone. Just parking lots, public toilets and hot dog stands.
Hot dog stands....really!? I had some misgivings about the proposal (given the open endedness and the castle experience), but you just sold me on hot dog stands. It beats the hell out of mountain house, am I right? Well...except the lasagne of course....man do I love me some za.

Let's be real. Not being completely oppossed to the proposal does not mean you are stupid or duped (I have yet to see anyone post who is blindly in favour). While I ultimately view things differently than guys like Walking Buffallo, at least he is willing to engage in the issues and form well meaning and reasoned response. Those type of arguments ultimately make me re-evaluate my own position and consider another point of view. I am sure it does the same for others.

If you are against the proposal I would encourage you to do better than hot dog stands and insults. Take some time, burn some mental calories, and actually engage the issues....unless you truly think guiseppee is going to start flinging dogs up at lost guide lake....in which case, on day 5 of the hunt I will meet you there.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:43 AM
oiler_nation oiler_nation is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bitterrootfly View Post
I understand where you are coming from and I use to think almost exactly the same, and this is coming from someone who almost exclusively hunts in K country but we don’t always need to pick conservation OR atv use and random camping. The problem with the Bighorn is where it puts the power in the hands of people who have no place holding power over conservation and wildlife. I don’t own an ATV or a horse and every one of my hunts is done on foot, but there is already plenty of land for guys like me (and I assume you as well) to do what we love on foot away from vehicles. Does the bighorn need to be looked at as far as some conservation issues, absolutely but a sweeping motion like the current bighorn plan is not the way and unfortunately organizations like BHA (of which I WAS a member) have failed to recognize that and are crawling in bed with the devil (hyperbole I know). If you ever are down in the k country area and want some pointers to some awesome foot access only spots, let me know brother.
I appreciate where you are coming from for sure, and I think we share far more similarities than differences. I do agree that we don't have to pick conservation or Atv's and random camping, and that is sort of where I am at on the Bighorn. On a personal level I would rather see no Atv's in the Wildland, but I think it is important the final plan strikes a balance between all users. That does not mean Atvs are permitted to run wild (they aren't now), but it does mean greater restrictions within the Wildland. Furthermore, the PLUZ is a large area that allows for random camping and Atv access.

As far as kananaskis goes, keep me in mind. I am probably a 7-8 out of 10 on a mouth reed, and would be happy to leave the Prime at home if it meant getting into some elk as a caller.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 01-12-2019, 05:29 AM
RZR RZR is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi View Post
Not being a Richard, but my answer would be not enough land restricted? I have seen way too much of the Bighorn and other areas beat on from various offroad users (including my own use at times). It's been interesting watching the Ghost recover from the OHV and general motorized abuse. Lot more wildlife in there off the roads, way fewer random trails and junk show "campsites," noticeably better for visitors and animals. I don't hunt some of the places I used to because I don't want to cart a deer out that far, but there are definitely more deer and even the odd elk in there, which do fill out into the areas I hunt. I support the Bighorn proposal for the same reasons, I believe future Albertans will appreciate it as we do Kananaskis and the other park areas (many of which are still open to hunting, as the Bighorn is).
I beg to differ that there are more Deer and Elk in these areas that have been closed off. Ridding an area of camping and ohv's isn't changing the amount or quality of wildlife and if you truly believe this your a fool. Go for a walk in k-country and let me know how many elk you see. I can guarantee it won't any more then an area where you can still camp or quad.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:13 AM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post
The Bighorn is a large tract of land and the PLUZ is even larger. I would love to see room for you to take your kids on designated trails in specific areas while I can take mine into an area designated for a more authentic wilderness experience. Based case scenario, when my knees and back give out my kid will be doing the same things with their kids. That is the essence of the multiple use framework.
So.. how much of the Siffleur have you camped in? How about the Willmore? There are already huge tracts of land where you can enjoy "a more authentic wilderness experience" and judging from the time I have spent in them there is virtually no one using them. When the existing reserved spaces are getting overrun with users, detracting from that "nirvanna experience" maybe folks could talk about the requirement for more land. Till then it is a hollow and specious argument.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:23 AM
243plus 243plus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainTi View Post
As you say, polls can be skewed quite easily. Wander around the downtown cores of the 2 big cities and poll the patrons of Starbucks. The type that shops at MEC and heads for Canmore or BNP. That's about all they know about the "wilderness". They have no clue about the bighorn and the many restrictions that are already in place.
Voila....a poll that suits their perspectives
Actually, what I said was that the type of polls you see on CBC or the Sun are not valid. A statistically valid polls/studies like the one CPAWS did are valid, and they had a large data set, randomly selected. Here is the polling company's areas of expertise they poll in: https://www.advanis.ca/sector-expertise

The margin of error shown in that poll is +/- 3% at a 95% confidence level. That's a pretty valid poll.

As such, that is the reality we need to deal with. The same goes for hunting in general; when we are only 4-5% of the population, we need the support of the majority to continue. So, with most of Alberta supporting the proposal, even if it can be argued that they have no clue what is in the actual plan (did everyone here actually read the whole plan?), they are going by gut reaction, and as they say in politics, perception IS reality.

And that is the reality we all need to be aware of.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:47 AM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
So, with most of Alberta supporting the proposal, even if it can be argued that they have no clue what is in the actual plan (did everyone here actually read the whole plan?), they are going by gut reaction, and as they say in politics, perception IS reality.

And that is the reality we all need to be aware of.
This is exactly the problem. How many folks in a random sample of the population know that this is the current situation https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/253c...re-mar2018.pdf - that there are already vast amounts of the area that are under protective regulations - that a framework for protection and multi layered usage already exists.
Parks and all the associated commercialization of the wilderness is most certainly not what is needed for this remaining area of wilderness. Enforcement, monitoring and adjusting of the existing regulations is where our money should be spent.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:16 AM
Abe89 Abe89 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 241
Default

As has been stated, there are already good conservation laws and an existing plan that already exists. I share the concern of what may happen should the power of decision in these areas be taken from the public and put in the hands of government (like bill 6, pipeline, school decisions....a lot of change these past 4 years). The conservation efforts of each area has so far been left to each individual riding/area because they actually use it and see the needs.
I do agree that conservation is a good and necessary thing, and personally I would like to see random mechanical campers and quading use curbed or enforced.... I have seen weekend warrior impact (while I was a white water raft guide) and you’d think the backcountry was just another amusement park. But I don’t want to see it completely banned so certain people can’t access it. Not sure where that happy medium is.
A also have seen the areas and trails of responsible use and think they are great, nor do I want to see quads completely cut out...I have some areas myself I hope to use a quad to access.
Hope I’m communicating both sides of the coin. I’m more apposed than for simply because of where the power lies...most experience I’ve had with government involvement (im speaking from a farmer perspective) they make things not make a lot of sense, very difficult to accomplish anything, and cost a crap ton more than it needs to.
That being said, recently heard a good idea towards conservation; our money for hunting tags goes to conservation. Why are we the only backcountry users paying for this? (I know there are a few other ways, im generalizing to keep it short). Why not impart a 1$-2$ tax on every piece of camping backcountry gear sold, and have that money go directly into conservation; trail maintenance, research, etc. Fund the organizations and plans in place already doing this. The amount of people using the backcountry is growing, and the impact is growing, those who hike but don’t hunt should be involved as well. A lot could be accomplished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:29 AM
crazy_davey crazy_davey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Foothills
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post
Hot dog stands....really!? I had some misgivings about the proposal (given the open endedness and the castle experience), but you just sold me on hot dog stands. It beats the hell out of mountain house, am I right? Well...except the lasagne of course....man do I love me some za.

Let's be real. Not being completely oppossed to the proposal does not mean you are stupid or duped (I have yet to see anyone post who is blindly in favour). While I ultimately view things differently than guys like Walking Buffallo, at least he is willing to engage in the issues and form well meaning and reasoned response. Those type of arguments ultimately make me re-evaluate my own position and consider another point of view. I am sure it does the same for others.

If you are against the proposal I would encourage you to do better than hot dog stands and insults. Take some time, burn some mental calories, and actually engage the issues....unless you truly think guiseppee is going to start flinging dogs up at lost guide lake....in which case, on day 5 of the hunt I will meet you there.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk
Yes, hot dog stands... Did you actually read what happened in the Castle last summer or just mouthing off because you have no clue?

Yes hot dog stands, do I have to go back and dig it up and prove it to you or are you smart enough to look it up for yourself? I doubt it, but maybe...

Edit: Screw it, instead of reading some long winded response that really says nothing: https://www.albertaparks.ca/albertap...-food-vendors/

Last edited by crazy_davey; 01-12-2019 at 09:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:40 AM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
Actually, what I said was that the type of polls you see on CBC or the Sun are not valid. A statistically valid polls/studies like the one CPAWS did are valid, and they had a large data set, randomly selected. Here is the polling company's areas of expertise they poll in: https://www.advanis.ca/sector-expertise

The margin of error shown in that poll is +/- 3% at a 95% confidence level. That's a pretty valid poll.

As such, that is the reality we need to deal with. The same goes for hunting in general; when we are only 4-5% of the population, we need the support of the majority to continue. So, with most of Alberta supporting the proposal, even if it can be argued that they have no clue what is in the actual plan (did everyone here actually read the whole plan?), they are going by gut reaction, and as they say in politics, perception IS reality.

And that is the reality we all need to be aware of.
First off, welcome to the forum. I see you just joined....

So what you are saying is that polls by the sun, cbc (I cringed just typing that word), ect...hold no relevance.
But yet a poll bought and paid for by CPAWS is valid?? Seems like quite an agenda you have, you didn't join AO just for that did you? Sadly (but not surprising), there are others that will drink the same Kool-Aid
__________________
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
  #251  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:47 AM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Seems there are a few that believe the bighorn is a wild west free-for-all that needs to be turned into another Kananaskis.

Here is a pdf of the bighorn backcountry showing the area and restrictions already in place. Spend a bit of time and give it a read. Might learn a bit more about the area before forming an opinion.

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/253c...re-mar2018.pdf
__________________
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
  #252  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:15 AM
243plus 243plus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainTi View Post
First off, welcome to the forum. I see you just joined....
Thanks, been lurking for awhile

Quote:
So what you are saying is that polls by the sun, cbc (I cringed just typing that word), ect...hold no relevance.
But yet a poll bought and paid for by CPAWS is valid?? Seems like quite an agenda you have, you didn't join AO just for that did you? Sadly (but not surprising), there are others that will drink the same Kool-Aid
No, what I am saying is that the "polls" that are on the Sun or CBC have no statistical validity. That doesn't mean that those who already are presupposed to accepting the bias those two outlets have and respond are not expressing their opinion, it just means that it doesn't represent anybody but those groups.

The Advanis poll commissioned by CPAWS is statistically valid. I have no doubt that if it was not positive to the CPAWS point of view, that we would never hear about it. That it the way privately commissioned polls normally work. I am disappointed that Advanis did not show all the questions asked; it would add to credibility.

We as hunters need to recognize, I think, that we are a minority and there are a ton of groups, like PETA, which are bound and determined to eliminate the things and activities we love. I think we need to be careful that we don't give them anymore ammunition than they have. Joe Rogan often makes a similar point on his podcasts. They are worth listening to,
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:42 AM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post

We as hunters need to recognize, I think, that we are a minority and there are a ton of groups, like PETA, which are bound and determined to eliminate the things and activities we love. I think we need to be careful that we don't give them anymore ammunition than they have. Joe Rogan often makes a similar point on his podcasts. They are worth listening to,
You are correct in that we as hunters are in the minority. But hunters are far from the only piece in this pie (this thread is probably misleading as it is in the hunting section).
Take note of my "location". I'm here, live here, work here. The opposition is strong here, very strong. And I can tell you, it is far from only hunters that oppose this whole "plan".
The government is constantly taking away our rights/privileges. When will it end? When there are none left to take? Our rights are being eroded....and not slowly.

Much like a hashtag (to me it is still a pound sign), I have no idea what a podcast is. I actually don't care to know, so I probably won't be listening to one
__________________
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
  #254  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:57 AM
bitterrootfly bitterrootfly is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: South West Alberta and K-Country
Posts: 421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post
I appreciate where you are coming from for sure, and I think we share far more similarities than differences. I do agree that we don't have to pick conservation or Atv's and random camping, and that is sort of where I am at on the Bighorn. On a personal level I would rather see no Atv's in the Wildland, but I think it is important the final plan strikes a balance between all users. That does not mean Atvs are permitted to run wild (they aren't now), but it does mean greater restrictions within the Wildland. Furthermore, the PLUZ is a large area that allows for random camping and Atv access.

As far as kananaskis goes, keep me in mind. I am probably a 7-8 out of 10 on a mouth reed, and would be happy to leave the Prime at home if it meant getting into some elk as a caller.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk
Bring the prime, I’ll bring the elk. And I’m sure we have far more similarities than differences too.
__________________
Either write something worthy of doing or do something worthy of writing about.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 01-12-2019, 06:26 PM
243plus 243plus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

Interesting information from a credible independent source.

https://www.wcscanada.org/Portals/96...-14-091303-903

The report is not small; it's 141 pages, with almost 20 pages of citations. I've only skimmed it, as I just became aware of it. It was released back in May of 2017. What I did see is that most of the environmentally sensitive areas are covered by the Bighorn plan in one way or another.

Has anyone done an in-depth read on this?
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 01-12-2019, 06:43 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
Interesting information from a credible independent source.

https://www.wcscanada.org/Portals/96...-14-091303-903

The report is not small; it's 141 pages, with almost 20 pages of citations. I've only skimmed it, as I just became aware of it. It was released back in May of 2017. What I did see is that most of the environmentally sensitive areas are covered by the Bighorn plan in one way or another.

Has anyone done an in-depth read on this?
Gonna blow your cover if you're not careful
WSC Canada......
__________________
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
  #257  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:24 PM
243plus 243plus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainTi View Post
Gonna blow your cover if you're not careful
WSC Canada......
Maybe I'm naive, but first of all, what's wrong with them, and secondly, the report appears to be pretty comprehensive.

I looked at the partners of the Wildlife Conservation Society, and I see that the Canadian Wildlife Federation is one of them. SCI is another, as is DU Canada and even Y2Y is a partner. That's a pretty broad tent.

What's wrong with the Wildlife Conservation Society?

And what is wrong with the report? Seriously, I have only skimmed it, but it looks well done. Is there something in it that you feel is not represented well? Honest question.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:08 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
The report is not small; it's 141 pages, with almost 20 pages of citations. I've only skimmed it, as I just became aware of it. It was released back in May of 2017. What I did see is that most of the environmentally sensitive areas are covered by the Bighorn plan in one way or another.

Has anyone done an in-depth read on this?
So now we know where the blueprint for this whole debacle has come from. The same folks that engineered the Castle, according to their brag sheet
Quote:
Our Mission

WCS Canada saves wildlife and wild places in Canada through science, conservation action, and by inspiring people to value nature. WCS Canada uses a unique blend of on-the-ground scientific research and policy action to help protect wildlife across Canada. Our scientists are leaders in developing solutions to address conservation challenges, from the impacts of climate change on wildlife and wild areas to the cumulative effects of resource development and other human impacts. We work in some of the wildest corners of Canada to build a scientific case for the conservation of globally important wild areas, like the far north in Ontario, the Northern Boreal Mountains of BC and Yukon, and the Arctic Ocean, where there is still a big opportunity to protect intact ecosystems. We combine insights gained from our “muddy boots” fieldwork with a big-picture conservation vision to speak up for species such as caribou, wolverine, bats, bison, freshwater fish and marine mammals. This unique approach has led to many conservation successes, including a seven-fold expansion of Nahanni National Park, protection of Yukon’s pristine Peel Watershed and the creation of the Castle Wildland Park in southern Alberta.
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:17 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
Maybe I'm naive, but first of all, what's wrong with them, and secondly, the report appears to be pretty comprehensive.

I looked at the partners of the Wildlife Conservation Society, and I see that the Canadian Wildlife Federation is one of them. SCI is another, as is DU Canada and even Y2Y is a partner. That's a pretty broad tent.

What's wrong with the Wildlife Conservation Society?

And what is wrong with the report? Seriously, I have only skimmed it, but it looks well done. Is there something in it that you feel is not represented well? Honest question.
I really don't think you're naive at all

You might have had an easier time convincing me if you would have thrown the suzuki foundation (notice no capitals in there...not deserving of it) in there as well

Where's their money coming from? I'm guessing you know
__________________
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; 01-12-2019 at 08:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:44 PM
243plus 243plus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainTi View Post
I really don't think you're naive at all

You might have had an easier time convincing me if you would have thrown the suzuki foundation (notice no capitals in there...not deserving of it) in there as well

Where's their money coming from? I'm guessing you know
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?
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:05 PM
lead chucker's Avatar
lead chucker lead chucker is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 576
Default

I really hope that when nothead and Phillip's get voted out in may. That the ucp will starve all the funding for these parks.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:10 PM
Joe Black Joe Black is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post
Hot dog stands....really!? I had some misgivings about the proposal (given the open endedness and the castle experience), but you just sold me on hot dog stands. It beats the hell out of mountain house, am I right? Well...except the lasagne of course....man do I love me some za.

Let's be real. Not being completely oppossed to the proposal does not mean you are stupid or duped (I have yet to see anyone post who is blindly in favour). While I ultimately view things differently than guys like Walking Buffallo, at least he is willing to engage in the issues and form well meaning and reasoned response. Those type of arguments ultimately make me re-evaluate my own position and consider another point of view. I am sure it does the same for others.

If you are against the proposal I would encourage you to do better than hot dog stands and insults. Take some time, burn some mental calories, and actually engage the issues....unless you truly think guiseppee is going to start flinging dogs up at lost guide lake....in which case, on day 5 of the hunt I will meet you there.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk
The above is an example of how ill informed recent contributors think those that have been following the entire NDP/Shannon agenda from the beginning just don’t understand the issues.

We understand the issues completely.

If you try real hard, you may be able to fit another foot in there.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:34 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
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?
Not sure what any of those organizations have to do with the report you reference.

One of the first things that is wrong with the report is this:
Quote:
Funding:
This important conservation assessment was supported by the
Edmonton Community Foundation, Royal Bank of Canada, Wilburforce
Foundations, and the Yellowstone-to-Yukon Initiative.
That's who has paid for a report that recommends a giant Wildland Park, a dedicated Wolverine refugia (???) and the closure of the majority of the area from OHV use. A far cry from an integrated, multi-user approach - but a multi-user approach is far, far from the vision of Y2Y and Wilburforce.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:56 PM
243plus 243plus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning View Post
Not sure what any of those organizations have to do with the report you reference.

One of the first things that is wrong with the report is this:
That's who has paid for a report that recommends a giant Wildland Park, a dedicated Wolverine refugia (???) and the closure of the majority of the area from OHV use. A far cry from an integrated, multi-user approach - but a multi-user approach is far, far from the vision of Y2Y and Wilburforce.
What part of the discussion on linear disturbances on pages 30-36 do you find not scientifically valid? I looked and read some of the citations, and from my unscientific knowledge, they seem to have a lot of credibility.

Maybe you can tell me what parts in those pages are of factual concern.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:59 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
What part of the discussion on linear disturbances on pages 30-36 do you find not scientifically valid? I looked and read some of the citations, and from my unscientific knowledge, they seem to have a lot of credibility.

Maybe you can tell me what parts in those pages are of factual concern.
It is fraught with opinion. How about this one "Grizzly bears, wolverines, bighorn sheep, and bull trout are especially vulnerable to the effects of new access and inadequate regulations. If excess harvest of fish remains chronic, this can give rise to public demand for artificial stocking to compensate for unsustainable harvest ... at the further expense of native trout populations and ecosystem integrity." I don't see the citation to the scientific study that concludes there are inadequate regulations. Which citation did you check that showed the cause and effect relationship cited for the demand for artificial stocking?

Did they really do a study to find that an increase in high speed roadways led to an increase in vehicle/animal collisions?

The bias of opinion in those pages is blatant. It is patently obvious that anytime there is an interaction of humans and animals there will be a give and take relationship. But this is not about finding that balance of give and take, it is a strongly one sided relationship. Sure highways cause the occasional death of an animal. Within 5 miles either way of my house vehicles will kill 20 plus deer every year and usually a moose or two. Certainly far more than hunting mortality in the immediate area will ever be. Is anyone going to talk about shutting down the highway for the sake of the deer? Not a chance. They did put up the deer crossing signs, but they forgot to install the buttons for the deer to push to activate the flashing lights...but lord knows, even with those installed some motorists are capable of running over pedestrians so that probably isn't an issue.

Banning access is not the answer. Generalizing and extrapolating problems is not the answer. Bias and fear mongering is not the answer - but it is the weapon of choice for the animals over humans crowd because illogical emotional responses are easier to foster in the unknowing masses.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 01-13-2019, 06:16 AM
243plus 243plus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning View Post
It is fraught with opinion. How about this one "Grizzly bears, wolverines, bighorn sheep, and bull trout are especially vulnerable to the effects of new access and inadequate regulations. If excess harvest of fish remains chronic, this can give rise to public demand for artificial stocking to compensate for unsustainable harvest ... at the further expense of native trout populations and ecosystem integrity." I don't see the citation to the scientific study that concludes there are inadequate regulations. Which citation did you check that showed the cause and effect relationship cited for the demand for artificial stocking?
Fair point about stocking, however, if you read the individual sections of the background particular bull trout, but also the other species mentioned, that there is little question that human activity is a significant impact.
Quote:
Did they really do a study to find that an increase in high speed roadways led to an increase in vehicle/animal collisions?
Yes. 21% of the grizzlies that died in the 5 years outlined in the study in Alberta were killed by vehicles or trains.

From pg. 30:

"Roads, vehicle traffic, and associated human activity can have a variety of substantial effects upon species and ecosystems (see reviews and hundreds of references in Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Gucinski et al. 2001, Havlick 2002, Forman et al. 2003, Coffin 2007, Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009, Beckman et al. 2010, Selva et al. 2015, Brady and Richardson 2017). "

It is not only the individual linear disturbance, but as in many things affecting habitat, cumulative effects.

Quote:
The bias of opinion in those pages is blatant. It is patently obvious that anytime there is an interaction of humans and animals there will be a give and take relationship. But this is not about finding that balance of give and take, it is a strongly one sided relationship. Sure highways cause the occasional death of an animal. Within 5 miles either way of my house vehicles will kill 20 plus deer every year and usually a moose or two. Certainly far more than hunting mortality in the immediate area will ever be. Is anyone going to talk about shutting down the highway for the sake of the deer? Not a chance. They did put up the deer crossing signs, but they forgot to install the buttons for the deer to push to activate the flashing lights...but lord knows, even with those installed some motorists are capable of running over pedestrians so that probably isn't an issue.
I think you and I would probably agree that especially whitetail deer, but also other ungulates, are pretty resilient to population swings. Rough winter kills a lot? Twinning rates go up the next rut. The limiting factors with bull trout, grizzlies etc. are much more constraining, and what we view as little things add up quickly. I had no idea until reading some of these report the impacts of not only roads, but all linear disturbances. I was pretty skeptical at first, but the more I read about it, the more I became convinced. From a gut feeling point of view, who would think that cutlines had any negatives on critters? I always viewed them as giving a better food source for many, especially ungulates, but think about where are spring bear most likely to be seen? They love the clover on those open areas. But like I said, the more you read about the cumulative impacts (some of it in the report), the more you recognize that hey, yeah, it is an issue.

Quote:
Banning access is not the answer. Generalizing and extrapolating problems is not the answer. Bias and fear mongering is not the answer - but it is the weapon of choice for the animals over humans crowd because illogical emotional responses are easier to foster in the unknowing masses.
I agree, banning access is not the answer. But limiting the TYPE of access in sensitive areas is part of the answer. I would probably add that limiting the time of year may be a consideration also. As example, bull trout lay their eggs in the fall, and they hatch in the spring. Perhaps (I am speculating here, just an example) there should be curtailment of access to those spawning streams during that time? I am NOT advocating that, just giving it as an example.

My perspective as the long and short of it is that unless we want to see the type of affects we have seen of the destruction of lake shores, and often the spawning areas for many fish species, but building of cabins and then clearing the shores to get rid of weeds along the riparian areas, leaching of sewage, etc.

One cabin had little effect, the second one neither, but by the time 100 were put on a lake area, you know we had an effect. It's like the death by a 1000 cuts. We both know that is true, so when do we start mitigating our impact on habitat, or do we care?

I think most of us care. It's just that when it impacts us personally, we put our own interests above what is good for the whole. I do it, you do it, and most other people do that, especially if we are used to certain things, like camping in an area. We are all at least a bit hypocritical in that way, and I certainly will admit I've been guilty of it in the past, and probably will be in the future. It's just human nature.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:52 AM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
I agree, banning access is not the answer. But limiting the TYPE of access in sensitive areas is part of the answer. I would probably add that limiting the time of year may be a consideration also. As example, bull trout lay their eggs in the fall, and they hatch in the spring. Perhaps (I am speculating here, just an example) there should be curtailment of access to those spawning streams during that time? I am NOT advocating that, just giving it as an example.
This is the thing. Have you read the current Bighorn use plan/policy/regulations? All of these points exist already. There are areas closed to OHV traffic. There are areas that are open. There are areas with designated trails only. Some of the trails have time of year restrictions. Some of the trails have temporary closures. Equestrian activity is curtailed in some areas and each area has its own rules regarding oil, gas and lumber activity. The framework of a fluid and adaptable management of the area exists and is active. So the current "proposal" has nothing to do with protection of sensitive areas within a multi-user framework, and there is no evidence from existing models that their "plan" is better.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:55 AM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post

Yes. 21% of the grizzlies that died in the 5 years outlined in the study in Alberta were killed by vehicles or trains.
My apologies for trying to use sarcasm on a bulletin board.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:21 AM
crazy_davey crazy_davey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Foothills
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 243plus View Post
Fair point about stocking, however, if you read the individual sections of the background particular bull trout, but also the other species mentioned, that there is little question that human activity is a significant impact.


Yes. 21% of the grizzlies that died in the 5 years outlined in the study in Alberta were killed by vehicles or trains.

From pg. 30:

"Roads, vehicle traffic, and associated human activity can have a variety of substantial effects upon species and ecosystems (see reviews and hundreds of references in Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Gucinski et al. 2001, Havlick 2002, Forman et al. 2003, Coffin 2007, Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009, Beckman et al. 2010, Selva et al. 2015, Brady and Richardson 2017). "

It is not only the individual linear disturbance, but as in many things affecting habitat, cumulative effects.



I think you and I would probably agree that especially whitetail deer, but also other ungulates, are pretty resilient to population swings. Rough winter kills a lot? Twinning rates go up the next rut. The limiting factors with bull trout, grizzlies etc. are much more constraining, and what we view as little things add up quickly. I had no idea until reading some of these report the impacts of not only roads, but all linear disturbances. I was pretty skeptical at first, but the more I read about it, the more I became convinced. From a gut feeling point of view, who would think that cutlines had any negatives on critters? I always viewed them as giving a better food source for many, especially ungulates, but think about where are spring bear most likely to be seen? They love the clover on those open areas. But like I said, the more you read about the cumulative impacts (some of it in the report), the more you recognize that hey, yeah, it is an issue.



I agree, banning access is not the answer. But limiting the TYPE of access in sensitive areas is part of the answer. I would probably add that limiting the time of year may be a consideration also. As example, bull trout lay their eggs in the fall, and they hatch in the spring. Perhaps (I am speculating here, just an example) there should be curtailment of access to those spawning streams during that time? I am NOT advocating that, just giving it as an example.

My perspective as the long and short of it is that unless we want to see the type of affects we have seen of the destruction of lake shores, and often the spawning areas for many fish species, but building of cabins and then clearing the shores to get rid of weeds along the riparian areas, leaching of sewage, etc.

One cabin had little effect, the second one neither, but by the time 100 were put on a lake area, you know we had an effect. It's like the death by a 1000 cuts. We both know that is true, so when do we start mitigating our impact on habitat, or do we care?

I think most of us care. It's just that when it impacts us personally, we put our own interests above what is good for the whole. I do it, you do it, and most other people do that, especially if we are used to certain things, like camping in an area. We are all at least a bit hypocritical in that way, and I certainly will admit I've been guilty of it in the past, and probably will be in the future. It's just human nature.
So how many times have you been reincarnated now? Ten, eleven, twelve? Good timing too, right when one of the mods who knew all about you just quit...

I’m sure some others have also picked up on exactly who you are. It’s pretty obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:57 AM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_davey View Post
So how many times have you been reincarnated now? Ten, eleven, twelve? Good timing too, right when one of the mods who knew all about you just quit...

I’m sure some others have also picked up on exactly who you are. It’s pretty obvious.
I've got it narrowed down to a couple. Having trouble pin pointing though. Feel free to share if you like
__________________
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 08:55 AM.


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