First castle, now Bighorn

[dshaw]

Originally Posted by two_ker

Taco how many miles of river between the "headwaters" and lethbridge? Does any of it pass thru farmland or near feedlots.? How much herbicide or pesticide or runoff from feedlots enter the river? Any idea on how much water is pumped out for irrigation? And you are worried about some ohv's.

Good point, if they would just spend the millions on enforcement up there things would be just fine as is. OHV are just a scapegoat for what they want in the end. I think cattle do more damage than OHV at the headwaters area. Some cow and horse trails are just as bad as a dirt bike trail.

[Jadham]

Originally Posted by two_ker

Taco how many miles of river between the "headwaters" and lethbridge? Does any of it pass thru farmland or near feedlots.? How much herbicide or pesticide or runoff from feedlots enter the river? Any idea on how much water is pumped out for irrigation? And you are worried about some ohv's.

Not really relevant as you are talking about 2 different ecosystems. There are issues, like effects on Bull and Cutthroat trout, that aren't relevant farther downstream. A more pertinent question would be the effect of OHVs vs free ranging cattle on the freestone streams, or OHV vs industry on the Eastern Slopes.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Jadham

Not really relevant as you are talking about 2 different ecosystems. There are issues, like effects on Bull and Cutthroat trout, that aren't relevant farther downstream. A more pertinent question would be the effect of OHVs vs free ranging cattle on the freestone streams, or OHV vs industry on the Eastern Slopes.

How far downstream do Bull and Cutthroat live?

[flyguyd]

Originally Posted by Newview01

How far downstream do Bull and Cutthroat live?

Lots of bulls a long ways below the dam and the odd cutty as well, although they are presumably a cutbow and therefore not important

[LKILR]

Originally Posted by two_ker

Taco how many miles of river between the "headwaters" and lethbridge? Does any of it pass thru farmland or near feedlots.? How much herbicide or pesticide or runoff from feedlots enter the river? Any idea on how much water is pumped out for irrigation? And you are worried about some ohv's.

This post has nothing to do with Castle

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by LKILR

This post has nothing to do with Castle

Yes, it does.

People panic about an OHV in water, but say nothing about their sewage and waste entering the same water.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Lornce

Excellent Post Taco, I have also been a Hunter and Fisherman in the back country for an equal number of years and have seen the the severe damage. I often help F/G with Electro surveys and have seen the recorded decline in not only fish numbers but destruction of spawning areas. Our headwaters especially are under heavy impact. Our game also has seen declines, often from habatat loss and wildlife disruption.

Perhaps the saddest situations I have personally witnessed have been areas that have been planted in willow cuttings for habitat recovery be regularly flattened despite signs in place, lots of hard work up in smoke. Bridges built for ATV use to spare streambeds and borders put in place to funnel riders to bridges removed so riders could again dig up streambeds and banks.

I am now of the view self-policing does not and will not work. Area closures are the only answer at this point.

perhaps it has been posted here before but this is a nice overview of ATV use. by Don Meridith

You: Self policing does not work, will not work, therefore the only answer is shut down OHV use.

Me: Self policing does not work, the govt is weak on enforcement, therefore the govt must double down on enforcing regulations already in place.

[Jadham]

Originally Posted by Newview01

How far downstream do Bull and Cutthroat live?

It depends on the river system, but there is a steady decrease as water turbidity and summer water temp increase, but there isn't a real "line", barring physical barriers like dams. Spawning, by and large, is in the freestone portion with properly sized gravel, the eastern foothills and up.

Both bulls and cutthroat are considered "species at risk" and subject to the special treatment that goes along with designation.

[Jadham]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Yes, it does.

People panic about an OHV in water, but say nothing about their sewage and waste entering the same water.

Only if the sewage and waste is in the same general area though. What happens 100 km downstream is much more relevant to the potentially conflicting activities (OHV, Industry) in that same area 100km downstream.

The ecosystem of the stream by the time it hits Medicine Hat is different than in the foothills.

I agree with the other poster, we are talking about the Castle/Livingstone/Bighorn areas in this thread and activities/OHV in that area.

[CBHurricane]

Originally Posted by CNP

You: Self policing does not work, will not work, therefore the only answer is shut down OHV use.

Me: Self policing does not work, the govt is weak on enforcement, therefore the govt must double down on enforcing regulations already in place.

I agree, government if they were actually concerned..put more money into park wardens and conservation officers so they can do their job.

All this is kind of along the same lines as the Canada centennial 150 this year and tourists coming in by the boat load into the national parks. Where's the mediation in that, guess we're gonna loose all the bison calves this year cuz of ppl throwing them into their cars.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Lornce]

Originally Posted by CNP

You: Self policing does not work, will not work, therefore the only answer is shut down OHV use.

Me: Self policing does not work, the govt is weak on enforcement, therefore the govt must double down on enforcing regulations already in place.

As you said "Self policing does not work" In our economy, millions are not there to police people on what they should be doing in the first place. How do you police constant degrade of the area, we can't have enforcement camped out 24/7. Stewardship has been in the hands of riders for their part in the erosion problem. They have become less sensitized to damage the activity creates and revel in expanding damage.

Only now after much damage and facing banned areas do the organized groups suddenly acknowledge the problem, but most riders do not belong to an organized group to benefit from rider education. Change of attitudes and actions among riders is not easy, some do not want change for any reason and at any cost. Others just use misdirection blaming other factors like cattle, farming or government. This "it's not my fault" attitude is the same as agreeing with the problem.

Last spring at the fisheries round table we were able to view some of the airial surveys across the province that they are using to spot OHV damage and I must say it was an eye opener. Arial photos where shot as a survey of sensitive areas to measure the amount of damage and pinpoint enforcement. The areas far outstripped available enforcement resources. Much looked like a war zone.

Based on what I saw we will definitely be seeing more enforcement and closures where the damage has gone to far to protect headwaters. I am the last one who wants government intervention but it happens when it gets out of hand. Its terribly sad when things get so out of hand.

[forestrover]

I have been riding and fishing in the bighorn area for over 25 years. The trail system by the dam is great and maintained very well. The amount of work done on the trails is amazing in my eyes. It would be a shame to lose it.

Enforce and educate is the only answer, banning is absolute balderdash. We have Parks larger than Country's for pete sake in this province. No OHV's there for the self riotous ban crowd.

Whatever happened to compromise people? working on a solution together? Banning one thing opens the door to a dark place of things to come and like it or not, it will affect you at one point. Some person(s) somewhere will disagree with your view and they will try there hardest to take it from you. You will have nobody to thank but yourself.

[sharpstick]

Do we shut down hiways because people speed, no we use police officers to enforce the law. Do we shut down hunting or fishing because some people choose to poach, no we use fish and wildlife officers to enforce the law. Do we ban driving cars because some people choose to drink and drive (and at times kill other people while doing so), no we use police officers to enforce the law.
Why on earth cant we use law enforcement in these OHV areas to ENFORCE THE LAW?
Why should I lose my right to ride in these areas because of a few idiots??? Fine them just like we do for other crimes. If there is that much criminal activity out there, it sounds like they could justify a few officers out there patrolling these areas.
The squeaky wheel always seems to get the grease and if we let these groups continue without fighting back, it wont be just OHV trails shut down.
This world is going to hell, I'm glad my best days were in the good Ol days...
Just my 2 cents...

SS

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by forestrover

I have been riding and fishing in the bighorn area for over 25 years. The trail system by the dam is great and maintained very well. The amount of work done on the trails is amazing in my eyes. It would be a shame to lose it.

Enforce and educate is the only answer, banning is absolute balderdash. We have Parks larger than Country's for pete sake in this province. No OHV's there for the self riotous ban crowd.

Whatever happened to compromise people? working on a solution together? Banning one thing opens the door to a dark place of things to come and like it or not, it will affect you at one point. Some person(s) somewhere will disagree with your view and they will try there hardest to take it from you. You will have nobody to thank but yourself.

I agree.

What would be wrong with having an OHV orientation for the area or something similar, designated trails ect. There is always a way for a solution which doesn't include banning.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by Lornce

As you said "Self policing does not work" In our economy, millions are not there to police people on what they should be doing in the first place. How do you police constant degrade of the area, we can't have enforcement camped out 24/7. Stewardship has been in the hands of riders for their part in the erosion problem. They have become less sensitized to damage the activity creates and revel in expanding damage.

Only now after much damage and facing banned areas do the organized groups suddenly acknowledge the problem, but most riders do not belong to an organized group to benefit from rider education. Change of attitudes and actions among riders is not easy, some do not want change for any reason and at any cost. Others just use misdirection blaming other factors like cattle, farming or government. This "it's not my fault" attitude is the same as agreeing with the problem.

Last spring at the fisheries round table we were able to view some of the airial surveys across the province that they are using to spot OHV damage and I must say it was an eye opener. Arial photos where shot as a survey of sensitive areas to measure the amount of damage and pinpoint enforcement. The areas far outstripped available enforcement resources. Much looked like a war zone.

Based on what I saw we will definitely be seeing more enforcement and closures where the damage has gone to far to protect headwaters. I am the last one who wants government intervention but it happens when it gets out of hand. Its terribly sad when things get so out of hand.

Curious who is going to enforce the ban if they can't enforce things right now?

[Tactical Lever]

Funny that the NDP can blow their own horn every 15 minutes on the radio and TV but can't throw an educational commercial on ATV use in there.

Millions spent on self promotion, and how they are gonna make things so great here, but nothing on responsible back country enjoyment.

[Taco]

Originally Posted by Lornce

As you said "Self policing does not work" In our economy, millions are not there to police people on what they should be doing in the first place. How do you police constant degrade of the area, we can't have enforcement camped out 24/7. Stewardship has been in the hands of riders for their part in the erosion problem. They have become less sensitized to damage the activity creates and revel in expanding damage.

Only now after much damage and facing banned areas do the organized groups suddenly acknowledge the problem, but most riders do not belong to an organized group to benefit from rider education. Change of attitudes and actions among riders is not easy, some do not want change for any reason and at any cost. Others just use misdirection blaming other factors like cattle, farming or government. This "it's not my fault" attitude is the same as agreeing with the problem.

Last spring at the fisheries round table we were able to view some of the airial surveys across the province that they are using to spot OHV damage and I must say it was an eye opener. Arial photos where shot as a survey of sensitive areas to measure the amount of damage and pinpoint enforcement. The areas far outstripped available enforcement resources. Much looked like a war zone.

Based on what I saw we will definitely be seeing more enforcement and closures where the damage has gone to far to protect headwaters. I am the last one who wants government intervention but it happens when it gets out of hand. Its terribly sad when things get so out of hand.

Excellent Lornce, thank you

[dshaw]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Curious who is going to enforce the ban if they can't enforce things right now?

Good point, how many people will just still go. I suspect a few will.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Lornce

As you said "Self policing does not work" In our economy, millions are not there to police people on what they should be doing in the first place. How do you police constant degrade of the area, we can't have enforcement camped out 24/7. Stewardship has been in the hands of riders for their part in the erosion problem. They have become less sensitized to damage the activity creates and revel in expanding damage.

Only now after much damage and facing banned areas do the organized groups suddenly acknowledge the problem, but most riders do not belong to an organized group to benefit from rider education. Change of attitudes and actions among riders is not easy, some do not want change for any reason and at any cost. Others just use misdirection blaming other factors like cattle, farming or government. This "it's not my fault" attitude is the same as agreeing with the problem.

Last spring at the fisheries round table we were able to view some of the airial surveys across the province that they are using to spot OHV damage and I must say it was an eye opener. Arial photos where shot as a survey of sensitive areas to measure the amount of damage and pinpoint enforcement. The areas far outstripped available enforcement resources. Much looked like a war zone.

Based on what I saw we will definitely be seeing more enforcement and closures where the damage has gone to far to protect headwaters. I am the last one who wants government intervention but it happens when it gets out of hand. Its terribly sad when things get so out of hand.

Good try, but a little overdramatic.

As for policing - it would pay for itself, case closed.

Aerial photos? could you please share these? the only aerial photos I have seen were zoomed right in on the trails themselves. I would like a photo that can capture the entire Castle zone in one picture. If we can clearly see extensive damage in that photo, we'll talk. BTW, a trail is not damage.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by dshaw

Good point, how many people will still go. I suspect a few will.

I support this. Mass non-compliance may be necessary to deal with this BS.

[Taco]

Originally Posted by Newview01

BTW, a trail is not damage.

Could you point to the scientific study that shows that trails are not damage? I did a google search and I can find truckload of studies about various types of trails and roads and streambed sediment loading with each different type of trail or road all across North America but absolutely nothing about trails being a natural terrain feature and benign in nature.

Thanks

[DLMfab]

Originally Posted by morinj

If we can put people on the moon, cure diseases, and produce charities to raise money for some of the most well funded hospitals in the world, I'm sure there is someone out there that can produce a petition to put a stop to the that the profiteer has planned for our great outdoors! Am I the guy to do it? No! I would definitely not have a problem advocating, and signing it, nore would anybody else who sees the bigger picture, as to what's going on here. It's all about the money, and this is funds that we will never see!

Do I have to mak the petition? Or has someone done it already?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Taco

Could you point to the scientific study that shows that trails are not damage? I did a google search and I can find truckload of studies about various types of trails and roads and streambed sediment loading with each different type of trail or road all across North America but absolutely nothing about trails being a natural terrain feature and benign in nature.

Thanks

Ok Mr Suzuki, I am beginning to understand you a little more. Man-made trails should not exist. They are not natural.

I am not aware of a scientific study that shows that trails are not damage. But keep in mind that long before there were OHVs, herds of buffalo absolutely destroyed terrain in and around stream beds and other water sources. I know I am bringing up a long discussion here, but it is factual. Buffalo were not *****-footed gentle giants.

Edit - Ive seen some pretty well worn game trails. That was without 10,000 buffalo recently stomping across the hills.

[Taco]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Edit - Ive seen some pretty well worn game trails. That was without 10,000 buffalo recently stomping across the hills.

Ever notice the difference in layout between those trails and our more modern mechanically carved trails?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Taco

Ever notice the difference in layout between those trails and our more modern mechanically carved trails?

Yeah, there are a lot more game trails than OHV trails. There are some striking similarities, for example how they can cut up a hillside and be a path for water to run down, causing erosion.

[Taco]

OK I see you're keen observer of natural flow of things. It's all about cumulative effects.

TTFN

[Lornce]

Read the article in the Lethbridge News

Science offers counterpoint to the OHV controversy

Some Excerpts:

In the case of this past week's rallies by members of the off-highway vehicle (OHV) community, attention was drawn to the sheer numbers of angry people who showed up. There were more than 600 at the rally in Bellevue on Tuesday (Feb 7) night and more than 1000 emotionally charge individuals converged on Galt Gardens in Lethbridge on Saturday.

However, there was another gathering. This one took place at Helen Schuler Nature Centre Saturday morning, just before the rally in Galt Gardens. It wasn't as big - about 35 people - but, it was just as emotion packed. It was also backed by scientific facts which cannot be disputed.

The photos, graphs and years of statistics were there in bold view for everyone to see. Some of them were as frightening as looking at police evidence from a crime scene.

There were the stories from people and ranchers who live in the Castle area - all who are watching the destruction of the region and support the NDP move to close the region to OHV use.

The most powerful presentations came from the scientists. One of those was Lorne Fitch, a retired Alberta provincial fisheries biologist, and an adjunct professor at the University of Calgary.

When asked if it was a case of irresponsible riders ruining it for the rest, Fitch says the issue is bigger than that.

"The problem we have isn't about the bad apples, it's about the sheer volume of traffic - whether that traffic is the good guys or the bad guys - we just simply have too many roads and trails operated-on by too many people."

To underscore that comment, Fitch noted the change in activity over a 50-year time span in the upper Oldman, or everything upstream of the gap in the Livingstone range.

"In 1950, there was 177 stream crossings, by 2001, that had ballooned to 2803 stream crossings (this doesn't include the uncounted stream crossings created since 2001) - and every stream crossing is an opportunity for bank erosion to occur and for water that's collected by the roads and trails that cross those streams, to intercept water and deliver it, with sediment, into the streams and rivers every time it rains."

Fitch explains that erosion is a natural event, and can happen within the range of natural variation.

"But, what we have done with all our land use, not just off-highway vehicle traffic but logging, and to a limited extent grazing, and everything else we do, including sky hills and campgrounds and so forth, is we have ratcheted-up the amount of erosion far beyond the natural variability in the watershed."

What that means, is that sediment is being delivered on a more regular basis throughout most of the year, instead of just part of the year, and that impacts downstream water drinkers.

"Experts in the field, tell us that the Castle watershed, for example, provides about two-thirds of your cup of drinking water in Lethbridge."

In terms of trying to find a balance between protecting the environment and respecting the rights of parks users, Fitch says it is not likely at this point.

" We are well beyond a linear threshold density that can be acceptable, from a science standpoint, to protect biodiversity, water quality and water quantity, in the eastern slopes."

Fitch believes the conversation has to centre not around particularl 'rights' but, about the bigger picture.

"It isn't about the rights of off-highway vehicle users to use every trail, every time, everywhere, all the time - it's about where those trails are that would be acceptable for off-highway vehicle use, that wouldn't influence water quality and impact fish and wildlife populations - and right now, I can tell you, within the entire Oldman watershed, there is not one off-highway vehicle trail that was designed and built, or is maintained, in such a way as to prevent damage to the landscape."

There have been several groups in the Oldman Watershed that have been busy trying to restore stream banks by planting willows along the stream banks, to get the vegetative root mass back, to thwart erosion.

"However, in virtually every case that I have seen, off-highway vehicle operators have driven over and destroyed all, or part, of that planting effort."

The destruction doesn't end there. Bridges have been built over streams and rivers, to keep OHV riders from crossing directly through the water. However, during the group's presentation, it was shown that the bridges were frequently unused, as OHV riders would tear through the streams within feet of function bridges. When boulders were placed in the path to keep OHVers out of the river, they would go to great lengths to remove the boulders from the path - again, right beside a bridge.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Taco

OK I see you're keen observer of natural flow of things. It's all about cumulative effects.

TTFN

Less OHVs = more game trails?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Lornce

Read the article in the Lethbridge News

Science offers counterpoint to the OHV controversy

Some Excerpts:

In the case of this past week's rallies blah blah...

To make a long story short, the area is lacking in enforcement. Proper enforcement would take care of the issues that antis are fretting over.

[Walleyedude]

Lorne Fitch is certainly passionate in his opposition to OHVs, and he does make some valid points, but the issue is NOT black and white as he would so dearly like to make it.

Here's another opinion piece to ponder -

To the people of Alberta,
It is time to put a stop to the Biased Protectionist Movement in the Castle Region (and the rest of Alberta). It is time for all responsible recreationalists (motorized or not), community members, landowners, user groups (grazing, hunting, trapping, fishing), and members of industry to speak out against those groups and individuals seeking to lock up the wilderness to assure it meets the needs of their value system.

First, the moral- soul draining truth of the environmental movement in the Castle Region: Since the early 1980 industry representatives, representatives of different levels of government and environmental groups have been paid to attend meetings, consultations, roundtable discussion groups, and planning strategies for the Castle region. In addition local indigenous groups, interested community members, recreationalist, land users and outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds have taken time away from their jobs and families to attend the never ending plethora of meetings in an attempt to set management guidelines and agree on acceptable land use activities. For anyone involved in this process over the last 35+ years, there are two things that EVERYONE can agree on: 1) you can’t make everyone happy all the time, and 2) the Castle Area is important to diverse groups of users.
Every group has made concessions over the past 35 years. Some examples include: limiting forest harvest, restrictions on resource development, timing and elevation restrictions for grazing, motorized recreation trail closure (seasonal or permanent) and exclusion zones for all users in ecological reserves. The affected groups have adapted to the concessions that were imposed on them, sometimes bitterly or angrily, but adapted none the less.
There is a single group however that has chosen at every opportunity to petition governments to impose broader and less inclusive restriction on every other user group because the status quo did not meet their value system. At every change of government, ministry shuffling or scheduled policy review the Biased Protectionist Movement demanded or necessitated that all of the other stakeholders and users groups come back to the table and negotiate with the needs of their value system, AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN…..

Second, The facts;
The Alberta Land Use Framework (released in 2008) is the most extensive consultation (both in duration and cost) ever undertaken with Albertans by the Government of Alberta. The South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) was born out of Alberta’s Land Use Framework. The plan came into effect in 2014. The development of the SSRP utilized input and feedback received through three phases of public consultation: Input on the region’s issues; Feedback on the advice from the South Saskatchewan Regional Advisory Council; and Feedback on the draft SSRP. This process took over 5 years at the expense of Alberta taxpayers, and was inclusive of everyone who chose to participate.
The following are excerpts from the Land-use Framework Workbook Summary Report (a comprehensive summary of ALL feedback received):
a) “Users of public lands (e.g. recreational users, industrial users) should be encouraged to use the land in ways that maintain the public good by: Most respondents, by far, considered regulations and enforcement as the best, the only, or the default option of encouraging appropriate and responsible use of public lands.”
b) “Regulation and enforcement are fundamental for maintaining the public good. Irresponsible recreational users should be held accountable; enforcement should target those actually violating regulations rather that targeting all users.”
c) “Addressing when limits to growth are unacceptable, many residents focused on the means by which the Government of Alberta would determine when to impose limits. Respondents argued that the determination of when to set limits must be based on scientific evidence rather that driven by subjective or impressionistic information.”
d) Top three issues concerning Albertans: Failure to consider the combined (i.e. cumulative) effects of land use activities; Loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat (primarily through urban expansion, and industrial development and resource extraction), and not enough places for recreation activities.
Under the SSRP (which came into effect in 2014) the Castle region was designated as a conservation area (see Appendix F of the SSRP for details) which was composed of The Castle Wildland Provincial Park and the existing Castle special Management Area. The following excerpt is from the SSRP implementation plan (pages 64-66)
“Where off-highway vehicle use is permitted in wildland provincial parks (see
Appendix L and Appendix M), it will be managed to designated off-highway vehicle trails and areas. Off-highway vehicle use is permitted only on existing off-highway vehicle trails and areas where a management plan, trails plan, regulation, sign, notice, or trail marker designates such use. In new or expanded areas where off-highway vehicle use is permitted and designation of trails or areas has not yet occurred, use of existing off-highway vehicle trails and areas can continue in the interim until the earliest of either a trail plan or management plan is developed which identifies where off-highway vehicle use will be permitted OR off-highway vehicle use is otherwise restricted by regulation. No new trails or routes or access may be developed without a management plan, trail plan or regulation. Off-highway vehicle use shall not occur in the beds and shores of permanent water bodies. Furthermore, off-highway vehicle use shall not occur on power line rightsof- way, utility corridors, or industrial facility areas (e.g., well-sites), unless specifically authorized to do so….”

So there is the proof that an implementation plan that met the values of most Albertans was already in place for the Castle Region in 2014. Guess which group felt that this did not meet the needs of their value system? Yep, you guessed it. The biased protectionist movement which lobbied the biased protectionist NDP government, which amended the SSRP in 2015 without anything even approaching adequate consultation of the people of Alberta, which has brought us all to the table to negotiate with the needs of their value system… AGAIN!

Now the Economics:
A financial report published by Smith Gunther Associates in 2015 states that Alberta has between 194,371 & 231,675 ATV’s and Side by Sides (does not include motorcycles or snowmobiles) and the direct and indirect contribution to the Alberta Economy are between $3.7 and $4.7 BILLION dollars in 2015.
In addition in 2009 snowmobiling enthusiasts spent $111.3 million on new snowmobiles, accessories, parts and clothing and another $254.7 million on operating and maintaining these vehicles and on tourism related activities (SSRP page 20). That means that Off Highway vehicles (excluding motorcycles, which I could find no data for) contribute between $4.06 BILLION and $5.06 BILLION to the ALBERTA economy annually. Visitor spending in Alberta’s provincial parks is estimated to be approximately $317 million (no, not billion), and that does not include the cost of managing or operating the Provincial Parks. The exclusion of OHV’s is going to have a significant impact on the local and regional economy. Annually Provincial parks contribute less than 6.25% or 1/16 of the dollars to the economy that OHV users do.
And now the reality checks:
This biased protectionist movement has millions of dollars behind it. They accept donations from anyone, without question, if it will aid in their cause. Because of the financial power of these environmental groups, they can afford to permanently lobby governments at every level.
If any other interest or user group (Oil &, Gas, forestry, OHV users) behaved in this manner there would be public outrage, they would be demonized in the media and would be shammed into silence. Environmental groups have adapted this as standard operating procedure, and the public has accepted that “they are looking out for our best interests”. Perhaps it is time that the masses begin to look at environmental groups for what they really are, a heavily biased protectionist movement seeking to lock up the wilderness to assure it meets the needs of their value system. Want proof? Members of environmental groups will put on their leather gloves (made from cows or deer), leave their home (which is built from forest products and heated by natural gas or fire wood), get into their car (which is fueled by hydrocarbons) and drive to a protest against oil and gas exploration, or grazing on public lands or chain themselves to a tree to prevent it from getting cut down, or get paid to picket on the steps of the legislature. Apparently the environment only needs to be saved from those of us who don’t agree with their values.

Conclusion:
I call for the NDP government to immediately make public all of the following:
– The list of participants and all of the minutes from all of the meetings held in development of the draft (released Jan. 20, 1017),
– All of the “science” that Minister Phillips continues to reference in televised and printed media,
– The economic impact assessment conducted for the Castle Region and surrounding communities (as required under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act),
– the current data collected on current OHV use (summer and winter) for the Castle Region and the plan detailing the displacement to adjacent public lands (as stated in the draft).

I call for the NDP government to immediately implement the SSRP as it was released in 2014 (excluding the 2015 amendment and current draft). The 2014 plan is the direct product of the most comprehensive public consultation process undertaken by the Government of Alberta and set in place clear and definitive guidelines and policies for the entire region including the Castle. The 2014 plan comprehensively addresses the unacceptable abuse of the wilderness by a small minority of users that is unacceptable to responsible recreational users and environmental advocates alike.

All Albertans contributed to the development of the SSRP, including the protection of the Castle region. The environmental movement continues to use ideology over evidence and limitless resources to find or fund science that backs their value system, and lobbies the government with this proof of ideology. Let’s stick to the original plan Albertans wanted and stop being bullied by the demands of the biased protectionist environmental movement that just can’t figure out they have to share with the rest of us!

Russell Bruder