New Bighorn information meetings

[ESOXangler]

Originally Posted by Jamie

If that was bullied and threatened to you, then you really need to get out of your moms basement. If I told you he was squinting at the computer while typing, that would probably make you pee yourself a bit.
Grow a pair of balls would you. So tired of the offended, threatened people on line these days. (This goes for all sides of any argument BTW)

It was childish regardless if you're tired or not. And hes the only one voicing his opinion in the echo chamber of a forum.
So I'd call that having balls. Wouldn't you?
I grew up in the area too and im with him. I'm tired of citiots driving up from Calgary and Edmonton and trashing the place on a long weekend. To be fair I am ignorant to the proceedings that happened in castle and porcupine areas and will be researching that. But as for limiting exposure to atvs and resource extraction I am all for it. Between the clearcutting and the offroading we are really disrespecting some beautiful country.

To be fair I still agree with random camping though, as well as atving. We just need some regulation.

[Spruster]

Originally Posted by RandyBoBandy

I have no dog in this fight but...just ban all ATV's

….

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by ESOXangler

It was childish regardless if you're tired or not. And hes the only one voicing his opinion in the echo chamber of a forum.
So I'd call that having balls. Wouldn't you?
I grew up in the area too and im with him. I'm tired of citiots driving up from Calgary and Edmonton and trashing the place on a long weekend. To be fair I am ignorant to the proceedings that happened in castle and porcupine areas and will be researching that. But as for limiting exposure to atvs and resource extraction I am all for it. Between the clearcutting and the offroading we are really disrespecting some beautiful country.

To be fair I still agree with random camping though, as well as atving. We just need some regulation.

Don’t worry your going to get your regulation and lots of it and pay through the nose to use the area.
Both random camping and ATVing will be almost nonexistent if you can at all.
Hunting will be next some time down the road first they will start with predators, then all others and when that day comes comes I’ll be here to give you all a big told you so.
It’s not a socially accepted way of life anymore and that will be all they need to shut it down.
Death by social licence.

[MrDave]

Its a shame so many can't keep separation between political issues and environmental issues.
I'm guessing that if this was put forward by UCP you would be clapping.

How many times have people complained about the province being broke, government spending money they don't have, yet you want to start paying more taxes on enforcement?
Go look at the maps provided. See where the commercial development is expected. The investment in this park is just peanuts, when you look at the costs of running this province. The money wouldn't have been a problem if the prior government not been wasting it. Its an investment in our future. An investment in saving the headwaters of our rivers. Ever think about the feces and urine washing down from people camping in the river beds? Bet not.

Over all I see a small loud group upset about not getting something for nothing. I will miss the free camping, but guess what, there is still lots of it. Don't know where, perfect. I'm not telling where it is because it to will get over ran. Just like when they find out about your favorite fishing hole.

[Joe Black]

"How many times have people complained about the province being broke, government spending money they don't have, yet you want to start paying more taxes on enforcement?"


what do you call the 40 million earmarked for the parks? so that is not tax money?

seriously, pull your head out.

[ehrgeiz]

Originally Posted by MrDave

An investment in saving the headwaters of our rivers. Ever think about the feces and urine washing down from people camping in the river beds?

The pitch about saving the headwaters is absolute nonsense contrived by these well-funded NGO's. The headwaters are not at risk and the reality is that downstream land use is far more likely to see a discharge or release that could immediately affect water quality for urban centers for a defined period of time. Again, well funded NGO's launched information brochures within urban centers leveraging this concept because it would likely garner the most support from the uninformed and disinterested urban majority.

Honestly man, you can't genuinely believe that urination or defecation by human activity in the eastern slopes would have a measurable effect on the quality of the water in Edmonton or Calgary?

[Albertadiver]

Originally Posted by ehrgeiz

The pitch about saving the headwaters is absolute nonsense contrived by these well-funded NGO's. The headwaters are not at risk and the reality is that downstream land use is far more likely to see a discharge or release that could immediately affect water quality for urban centers for a defined period of time. Again, well funded NGO's launched information brochures within urban centers leveraging this concept because it would likely garner the most support from the uninformed and disinterested urban majority.

Honestly man, you can't genuinely believe that urination or defecation by human activity in the eastern slopes would have a measurable effect on the quality of the water in Edmonton or Calgary?

Agreed.

Stuff like this is far more impactful to the watersheds. Y2Y is well funded and beyond sneaky.

https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news...uses-concerns/

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by Spruster

….

I'm not 100% certain, but I think RandyBoBandy's comment is what you would call "baiting". It seems to have worked.

ARG

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by ehrgeiz

The pitch about saving the headwaters is absolute nonsense contrived by these well-funded NGO's. The headwaters are not at risk and the reality is that downstream land use is far more likely to see a discharge or release that could immediately affect water quality for urban centers for a defined period of time. Again, well funded NGO's launched information brochures within urban centers leveraging this concept because it would likely garner the most support from the uninformed and disinterested urban majority.

Honestly man, you can't genuinely believe that urination or defecation by human activity in the eastern slopes would have a measurable effect on the quality of the water in Edmonton or Calgary?

his concern is valid because the cattle(and wildlife for that matter) are scheduled to be fitted with diapers that are to be disposed only at designated disposal sites, as part of the park plan. the new park workers will be monitoring and enforcing this new requirement. he saw that display didn't he?

[JDK71]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

his concern is valid because the cattle(and wildlife for that matter) are scheduled to be fitted with diapers that are to be disposed only at designated disposal sites, as part of the park plan. the new park workers will be monitoring and enforcing this new requirement. he saw that display didn't he?

that is good thanks for the laugh

[Dark]

Originally Posted by MrDave

Its a shame so many can't keep separation between political issues and environmental issues.
I'm guessing that if this was put forward by UCP you would be clapping.

How many times have people complained about the province being broke, government spending money they don't have, yet you want to start paying more taxes on enforcement?
Go look at the maps provided. See where the commercial development is expected. The investment in this park is just peanuts, when you look at the costs of running this province. The money wouldn't have been a problem if the prior government not been wasting it. Its an investment in our future. An investment in saving the headwaters of our rivers. Ever think about the feces and urine washing down from people camping in the river beds? Bet not.

Over all I see a small loud group upset about not getting something for nothing. I will miss the free camping, but guess what, there is still lots of it. Don't know where, perfect. I'm not telling where it is because it to will get over ran. Just like when they find out about your favorite fishing hole.

Small group of people? One poll had 37000 people against the proposal and all the local municipalities are against it. Looks like you need to do a little more research.

I wonder if you can hang your legally hunted animals in these new campsites.
I see you are a hiker do you hunt?

In a previous post you mentioned this was a small part of the province yet your leader Rachel is on TV stating that this is a large portion of the province?

And you call bs on my post...

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by MrDave

Its a shame so many can't keep separation between political issues and environmental issues.
I'm guessing that if this was put forward by UCP you would be clapping.

How many times have people complained about the province being broke, government spending money they don't have, yet you want to start paying more taxes on enforcement?
Go look at the maps provided. See where the commercial development is expected. The investment in this park is just peanuts, when you look at the costs of running this province. The money wouldn't have been a problem if the prior government not been wasting it. Its an investment in our future. An investment in saving the headwaters of our rivers. Ever think about the feces and urine washing down from people camping in the river beds? Bet not.

Over all I see a small loud group upset about not getting something for nothing. I will miss the free camping, but guess what, there is still lots of it. Don't know where, perfect. I'm not telling where it is because it to will get over ran. Just like when they find out about your favorite fishing hole.

I’m sure most would still contest these parks if it were the UCP were implementing them as we don’t trust any governing body doing things behind our backs.
How many of these park nonsupporters have talked to MLA’s, sent emails and letters to the UCP contesting selling off crown land. I would bet there is a few.
As for taxes we’ll most of us do not mind paying taxes if they would be responsible with the proceeds such as conservation officer enforcement.
You bet they could take the money they needed to hire 100 more fish and wild life officers and the high majority would be grinning ear to ear. We are screaming for it but no one listens and that includes the conservatives.
As for getting something for nothing I believe the crown belongs to the taxpayer and not the government but maybe my understanding does not jive with your narrative.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by MrDave

Its a shame so many can't keep separation between political issues and environmental issues.
I'm guessing that if this was put forward by UCP you would be clapping.

How many times have people complained about the province being broke, government spending money they don't have, yet you want to start paying more taxes on enforcement?
.

I can guarantee you there would not be a single person that is against this bullcrap that would be clapping if the UCP was trying to ram this thru either. Not a one. Why would you even suggest that?

I would far rather my taxes go toward simple enforcement versus my taxes paying the $40 million to turn my backyard into a park and then paying for enforcement on top of that. Or do you believe enforcement will not be needed after a $40 million park designation? Anxiously awaiting your answer dave

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by MrDave

Its an investment in our future. An investment in saving the headwaters of our rivers. Ever think about the feces and urine washing down from people camping in the river beds?

.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by MrDave

Ever think about the feces and urine washing down from people camping in the river beds? Bet not.

Uhhhh.. This is the worst example of any argument ever in the history of the world.

Mr Dave.. You just have to quit this one....

[Joe Black]

found this tid-bit(below) on the "my wild alberta" website regarding castle parks.

this is what the said they would do when this specific issue came up during the consultation stage for Castle. "Dont worry, we will figure that out later. " was their response.

Sound familiar with specific questions users have regarding the Bighorn Plan?

PS, for those who do not know, Lying Shannon did in fact NOT develop any access options with any user groups, she just shut everything down.(for castle park)




Can off-highway vehicles (OHVs) be used to retrieve game from areas off the trails in Castle Parks?

Off-highway vehicle use is allowed on all designated trails in the Castle Wildland Provincial Park and Provincial Park for the 2017 hunting season. Hunters will still need to move game to a designated trail. Beyond that, trail access options will be developed with user groups to ensure hunters can still recover game. Highway vehicles are no longer permitted on trails.

[MountainTi]

https://www.facebook.com/Coalitionof...0301654584684/

[FQ2]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Uhhhh.. This is the worst example of any argument ever in the history of the world.

Mr Dave.. You just have to quit this one....

I have to agree with you here. Who does that? I've brushed my teeth a few times and rinsed but never Number 1 or 2