Bighorn Public land to Parks land proposal

[landowner]

Good Luck with this ... As long as the NDP are in control locals and stakeholders will have very little input . Your best hope is that the park gets stalled until aUCP government gets in. Castle park was one of the first items on the NDP agenda , the Bighorn might be one of the last .

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by Abe89

Kinda derailed a touch...the issue is Alberta losing tons of available hunting access to parks. Is there anything to be done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From what we saw with the Castle $?&@ show I would say no.

[slough shark]

Anyone know what they’re proposing for random camping in the new area? I’m kinda concerned about what is actually coming as I spend a lot of time in the area and the bordering areas which I suspect will be overrun. Here’s hoping this all get delayed until the election

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by Abe89

Kinda derailed a touch...the issue is Alberta losing tons of available hunting access to parks. Is there anything to be done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have found it really hard to separate the fact from fiction. I did carve out some time to read the proposal when they released it a few weeks back, and I know that the majority of the area is PLUZ and Wildland Park with several smaller provincial parks included. You mentioned that we as hunters are losing a vast area, are you saying that we will not be able to hunt and fish in the Park? I had just assumed it would be a new Wilmore, have you heard anything different? I have mixed feelings about it, I own a quad, but living here and seeing the issues created by random RV camping and areas of unfettered quad access I do think something has to change. My take has always been that if I can fish, hunt, and back-country camp I am tentatively in favour, but if you are saying those are being eliminated I have some serious concerns. Just trying to wrap my head around this thing while the consultation period is still open.

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I have found it really hard to separate the fact from fiction. I did carve out some time to read the proposal when they released it a few weeks back, and I know that the majority of the area is PLUZ and Wildland Park with several smaller provincial parks included. You mentioned that we as hunters are losing a vast area, are you saying that we will not be able to hunt and fish in the Park? I had just assumed it would be a new Wilmore, have you heard anything different? I have mixed feelings about it, I own a quad, but living here and seeing the issues created by random RV camping and areas of unfettered quad access I do think something has to change. My take has always been that if I can fish, hunt, and back-country camp I am tentatively in favour, but if you are saying those are being eliminated I have some serious concerns. Just trying to wrap my head around this thing while the consultation period is still open.

One of the biggest issue with closing the bighorn to random camping and atv usage is any remaining areas will be flooded with people and the few remaining areas in southern Alberta will end up getting trashed from being way overused. Have you tried to get into campgrounds recently? Most campgrounds you need to book months in advance and hope you’re able to go when the time comes or you end up driving up to drop the trailer on Wednesday and hope you can get a spot. Closing those areas will mean hundreds or thousands of people will be trying to get into crowded campgrounds as they won’t have access to areas they’ve camped for years

[Abe89]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I have found it really hard to separate the fact from fiction. I did carve out some time to read the proposal when they released it a few weeks back, and I know that the majority of the area is PLUZ and Wildland Park with several smaller provincial parks included. You mentioned that we as hunters are losing a vast area, are you saying that we will not be able to hunt and fish in the Park? I had just assumed it would be a new Wilmore, have you heard anything different? I have mixed feelings about it, I own a quad, but living here and seeing the issues created by random RV camping and areas of unfettered quad access I do think something has to change. My take has always been that if I can fish, hunt, and back-country camp I am tentatively in favour, but if you are saying those are being eliminated I have some serious concerns. Just trying to wrap my head around this thing while the consultation period is still open.

I have the same stance as you.
What I’ve read so far has led me to understand we could lose the opportunity to hunt/fish...it would be another provincial park. I could be very wrong but that’s what I’ve understood. Trying to read up more on it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by slough shark

One of the biggest issue with closing the bighorn to random camping and atv usage is any remaining areas will be flooded with people and the few remaining areas in southern Alberta will end up getting trashed from being way overused. Have you tried to get into campgrounds recently? Most campgrounds you need to book months in advance and hope you’re able to go when the time comes or you end up driving up to drop the trailer on Wednesday and hope you can get a spot. Closing those areas will mean hundreds or thousands of people will be trying to get into crowded campgrounds as they won’t have access to areas they’ve camped for years

I guess I look at it from the perspective of a guy that likes to hunt and fish more than anything else. In my experience hunting other wildland areas (assuming I can still hunt in this one) I think the quality of habitat and the hunting and fishing opportunities will likely be enhanced. If that is the case then that is my number 1 priority. My hope is that some balance is struck similar to the model used in a few other wildland park areas I have hunted where there is some limited quad access for those that choose to do it that way. On a personal level, I have seen so many issues (Jeeps crossing the south ram, unattended fires along the trunk road, tons of garbage left behind) that I don't think the status quo is going to be sustainable as our population continues to increase. I am not sure that it is a valid arguement to say ATVs and random rv camping cause damage, so we shouldnt change anything because that just focuses the damage on other areas. I think I would rather have a few Mclean creeks if that means I can also have a few Willmores.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[Abe89]

Fair point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Douglas N]

Look into the proposed restrictions with the new West Country PLUZ. No random camping and OHV’s only on designated trails. Considering there are no current “designated” trails now, and what they did in the Castle area, we stand to lose a lot. That PLUZ alone is everything west of highway 22 all the way to the forestry trunk road.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by Douglas N

Look into the proposed restrictions with the new West Country PLUZ. No random camping and OHV’s only on designated trails. Considering there are no current “designated” trails now, and what they did in the Castle area, we stand to lose a lot. That PLUZ alone is everything west of highway 22 all the way to the forestry trunk road.

Where did you see no random camping in the proposed PLUZ?

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[Douglas N]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

Where did you see no random camping in the proposed PLUZ?

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

They currently propose it will be permitted, however most of their promises were not fulfilled in the Castle Area. Make your close heard to ensure this does not change.

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I guess I look at it from the perspective of a guy that likes to hunt and fish more than anything else. In my experience hunting other wildland areas (assuming I can still hunt in this one) I think the quality of habitat and the hunting and fishing opportunities will likely be enhanced. If that is the case then that is my number 1 priority. My hope is that some balance is struck similar to the model used in a few other wildland park areas I have hunted where there is some limited quad access for those that choose to do it that way. On a personal level, I have seen so many issues (Jeeps crossing the south ram, unattended fires along the trunk road, tons of garbage left behind) that I don't think the status quo is going to be sustainable as our population continues to increase. I am not sure that it is a valid arguement to say ATVs and random rv camping cause damage, so we shouldnt change anything because that just focuses the damage on other areas. I think I would rather have a few Mclean creeks if that means I can also have a few Willmores.
Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

I like you mainly like to hunt and fish those areas, I don’t even own a quad. However I do like to go camping out in that area so that I can go hunting and fishing which means bringing my family which means pulling the trailer, like most people I clean up after myself. A lot of my camping as well is done just east of the area which will now be overrun as people with quads will want to quad which is worrisome to me as realistically most of these issues could be solved with some simple enforcement. My main concern is simply getting out is getting more difficult in southern Alberta as campgrounds are perpetually full and they keep closing down areas where a person is able to go out and go camping and fishing. There are very few campgrounds in that area to begin with and the number of spaces that will be opened up won’t come close to approaching the number of people that would like to use the area. It also gets expensive when you pay $30+ a night and get virtually nothing for it other than being crowded in with everyone.

[bitterrootfly]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I guess I look at it from the perspective of a guy that likes to hunt and fish more than anything else. In my experience hunting other wildland areas (assuming I can still hunt in this one) I think the quality of habitat and the hunting and fishing opportunities will likely be enhanced. If that is the case then that is my number 1 priority. My hope is that some balance is struck similar to the model used in a few other wildland park areas I have hunted where there is some limited quad access for those that choose to do it that way. On a personal level, I have seen so many issues (Jeeps crossing the south ram, unattended fires along the trunk road, tons of garbage left behind) that I don't think the status quo is going to be sustainable as our population continues to increase. I am not sure that it is a valid arguement to say ATVs and random rv camping cause damage, so we shouldnt change anything because that just focuses the damage on other areas. I think I would rather have a few Mclean creeks if that means I can also have a few Willmores.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

Well said

[Douglas N]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I guess I look at it from the perspective of a guy that likes to hunt and fish more than anything else. In my experience hunting other wildland areas (assuming I can still hunt in this one) I think the quality of habitat and the hunting and fishing opportunities will likely be enhanced. If that is the case then that is my number 1 priority. My hope is that some balance is struck similar to the model used in a few other wildland park areas I have hunted where there is some limited quad access for those that choose to do it that way. On a personal level, I have seen so many issues (Jeeps crossing the south ram, unattended fires along the trunk road, tons of garbage left behind) that I don't think the status quo is going to be sustainable as our population continues to increase. I am not sure that it is a valid arguement to say ATVs and random rv camping cause damage, so we shouldnt change anything because that just focuses the damage on other areas. I think I would rather have a few Mclean creeks if that means I can also have a few Willmores.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

Wouldn’t more enforcement of the current laws work? $40mm would go a long way towards enforcement, among other things.

Making things illegal on several levels doesn’t mean it will stop.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by Douglas N

Wouldn’t more enforcement of the current laws work? $40mm would go a long way towards enforcement, among other things.

Making things illegal on several levels doesn’t mean it will stop.

Any enforcement would be better than what has been going on.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by slough shark

I like you mainly like to hunt and fish those areas, I don’t even own a quad. However I do like to go camping out in that area so that I can go hunting and fishing which means bringing my family which means pulling the trailer, like most people I clean up after myself. A lot of my camping as well is done just east of the area which will now be overrun as people with quads will want to quad which is worrisome to me as realistically most of these issues could be solved with some simple enforcement. My main concern is simply getting out is getting more difficult in southern Alberta as campgrounds are perpetually full and they keep closing down areas where a person is able to go out and go camping and fishing. There are very few campgrounds in that area to begin with and the number of spaces that will be opened up won’t come close to approaching the number of people that would like to use the area. It also gets expensive when you pay $30+ a night and get virtually nothing for it other than being crowded in with everyone.

I am certainly not suggesting that you are not cleaning up after yourself, but I think you would acknowledge that there are some who do not (hence your suggestion that the increased pressure elsewhere could cause those areas to be trashed). I the current draft appears to allow camping in the PLUZ and there is still a significant chunk of ground in the province where the type of random camping you describe is allowed. While I understand that this may make random camping more crowded and less convenient, and while I am sympathetic to the costs of formal campgrounds (particularly in our current economy) I am not convinced that this justifies not doing something that would appear to improve habitat and hunting/fishing in the province.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[Scopithorne]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I am certainly not suggesting that you are not cleaning up after yourself, but I think you would acknowledge that there are some who do not (hence your suggestion that the increased pressure elsewhere could cause those areas to be trashed). I the current draft appears to allow camping in the PLUZ and there is still a significant chunk of ground in the province where the type of random camping you describe is allowed. While I understand that this may make random camping more crowded and less convenient, and while I am sympathetic to the costs of formal campgrounds (particularly in our current economy) I am not convinced that this justifies not doing something that would appear to improve habitat and hunting/fishing in the province.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure how people think this is going to improve hunting and fishing in the province. It's the first step to closing down the eastern slopes.

[59whiskers]

So far you can hunt in Castle Park, that can change in a heart beat at Shannons discretion. The places I used to hunt are 6 to 10 km off the main roads. No longer practical to hunt large animals like elk unless you have horses. To bad there was no consultation with multiple local user groups from the original South Saskatchewan River Regional Plan. It could be good for outfitters that support Y2Y. Ordinary folk can take up bowling now.

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I am certainly not suggesting that you are not cleaning up after yourself, but I think you would acknowledge that there are some who do not (hence your suggestion that the increased pressure elsewhere could cause those areas to be trashed). I the current draft appears to allow camping in the PLUZ and there is still a significant chunk of ground in the province where the type of random camping you describe is allowed. While I understand that this may make random camping more crowded and less convenient, and while I am sympathetic to the costs of formal campgrounds (particularly in our current economy) I am not convinced that this justifies not doing something that would appear to improve habitat and hunting/fishing in the province.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

There is currently other land that one can camp and such, I don’t know if you heard but there are also preliminary consultations about the porcupine hills, the old man/Livingston basin, the nsr basin... pretty well much of the public land south of red deer out west so they’re working on our mountains and foothills being limited to access. You’re also dreaming if you think this will make hunting better (it may help fishing although access will be a pain) not only will some land be off limits many game animals do better in areas where we clear cut as it allows new growth as opposed to current practice of putting out fires. On top of that getting back into the bush many miles would put a good portion of those lands out of reach of most hunters and make the areas with decent access more crowded. I like wilmore and believe we should be doing some of that, these areas would likely look a lot more like kananaskis or Banff which would be kinda sad in my opinion. Then you have to take into account companies that will go under as a result and people put out of work but that’s a whole other angle.

[Cervidae]

I read the proposals for the areas, and I don’t think it will enhance natural hunting and fishing opportunities. It seemed like the proposals were more geared towards commercializations and making it easier to acces for “weekend warriors yuppie” types who want to come out but don’t want to pitch a tent or lose the luxuries of home. On the survey they were asking questions about building structures like cabins, having paid camping areas, and developing services (parking lots, stores, interpretive centres, etc). From what I have seen in the past this usually the first step towards shutting down of random camping, over crowding on lakes, crappier fishing, and loss of hunting area for fear of shooting near the commercialized facilities or hurting someone’s feelings

[Bub]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

no problem, there will come a day when these x-men wanna be's get old and decrepit, and will not be able to access the back country they so passionately guarded against the OHV invasion. hope they like playing hunting video games cause that's the closest they are gonna get to their backpack hunting experience then.

Not to stir the pot, rather an observation: OHV's and backpack hunting have nothing to do with one another.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by slough shark

There is currently other land that one can camp and such, I don’t know if you heard but there are also preliminary consultations about the porcupine hills, the old man/Livingston basin, the nsr basin... pretty well much of the public land south of red deer out west so they’re working on our mountains and foothills being limited to access. You’re also dreaming if you think this will make hunting better (it may help fishing although access will be a pain) not only will some land be off limits many game animals do better in areas where we clear cut as it allows new growth as opposed to current practice of putting out fires. On top of that getting back into the bush many miles would put a good portion of those lands out of reach of most hunters and make the areas with decent access more crowded. I like wilmore and believe we should be doing some of that, these areas would likely look a lot more like kananaskis or Banff which would be kinda sad in my opinion. Then you have to take into account companies that will go under as a result and people put out of work but that’s a whole other angle.

I am skeptical Nordegg is ever going to be Banff, or even kanaskis. Those two areas are a short drive from Calgary and located right off the transcanada highway. Nordegg does not have those (dis)advantages, so I think it is a bit chicken little to make the comparison....Hell. Jasper is not banff for that very reason.

As far as enhancement of hunting and fishing opportunity, I guess we just look at it differently. The fishing will likely improve BECAUSE access will be a bit more difficult, and I think you could say the same about hunting.

I agree with your perspective that logging often improves habitat, and that should continue in the PLUZ. I do hope that more modern forestry management practices will continue to be expanded in the Province and in the proposed wildland park in particular. I am certainly no expert, but there is a ton of old growth out West that does not seem to be overly productive, and it would be nice to see more controlled burns as habitat enhancement.

I understand that access to remote sections of the park will be difficult, but much of it was already restricted to ATVs anyway. I also think that you are not giving hunters enough credit...if my wife can walk into Lost Guide Lake with a 50lb pack I am sure many of our fellow hunters can do the same and then some (particularly if they think there could be some good hunting at the other end). I have no doubt that a majority will hunt close to the truck, but that means that there won't be as much pressure on the animals a bit further in. This should create an older age class (for those interested) and a more authentic wilderness experience.






Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[Scopithorne]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I am skeptical Nordegg is ever going to be Banff, or even kanaskis. Those two areas are a short drive from Calgary and located right off the transcanada highway. Nordegg does not have those (dis)advantages, so I think it is a bit chicken little to make the comparison....Hell. Jasper is not banff for that very reason.

As far as enhancement of hunting and fishing opportunity, I guess we just look at it differently. The fishing will likely improve BECAUSE access will be a bit more difficult, and I think you could say the same about hunting.

I agree with your perspective that logging often improves habitat, and that should continue in the PLUZ. I do hope that more modern forestry management practices will continue to be expanded in the Province and in the proposed wildland park in particular. I am certainly no expert, but there is a ton of old growth out West that does not seem to be overly productive, and it would be nice to see more controlled burns as habitat enhancement.

I understand that access to remote sections of the park will be difficult, but much of it was already restricted to ATVs anyway. I also think that you are not giving hunters enough credit...if my wife can walk into Lost Guide Lake with a 50lb pack I am sure many of our fellow hunters can do the same and then some (particularly if they think there could be some good hunting at the other end). I have no doubt that a majority will hunt close to the truck, but that means that there won't be as much pressure on the animals a bit further in. This should create an older age class (for those interested) and a more authentic wilderness experience.






Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

This older age class won't exist there's to many preditors as it is. I'm not for or against atvs ect...but fewer traffic is going to have a negative impact game animals in the region. if someone were to go away from the town sites of Banff or Jasper a few miles you'd find the back country of those parks not to hold a ton of wildlife. And while I don't know this for certain but I have a hunch that wildlife population has slowly decreased since the installation of the parks.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Originally Posted by Scopithorne

This older age class won't exist there's to many preditors as it is. I'm not for or against atvs ect...but fewer traffic is going to have a negative impact game animals in the region. if someone were to go away from the town sites of Banff or Jasper a few miles you'd find the back country of those parks not to hold a ton of wildlife. And while I don't know this for certain but I have a hunch that wildlife population has slowly decreased since the installation of the parks.

Why is this? Because you are 100% right. Look at the sheep decline on ram mountain. Hunting activity and people presences in some cases help animal populations. Since they shut it down, no one goes there anymore. They have nearly lost all their sheep. The few that are left are cougar bait.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by slough shark

I like you mainly like to hunt and fish those areas, I don’t even own a quad.

It's comments like this that make it easy for the government to close areas down. I don't quad so I'm ok with the closures, but by God if they close the hunting and fishing down I will scream and holler bloody murder. There are many user groups that use the outdoors and all of us should be banding together to fight the lose of areas that users like to use. Don't kid yourself there are a lot in individuals right here on the forum that quad, camp and hunt and fish that cause a lot of the problems with destroying areas, nobody is perfect. I spent a considerable amount of time in the castle area this past fall and hardly seen a sole in the area. Where did all these hardcore backpack hunters go. You see the government is getting exactly what they want, less users and that includes hunters and fishermen.

[Cal R.]

The other day was a consult meeting which was a mixed stakeholder meeting, primarily the Bighorn Heritage ATV Society and the Nordegg OHV society, both have members on the Bighorn Standing Committee as Summer Motorized representatives and are volunteers extraordinaire.
We were told by AEP staff yesterday that surveys are difficult to do in order to fairly represent the views of Albertan’s. The RAC survey was just to get a feel for the mood of Albertans and will not be considered as input. Essentially it was explained to be just practice and doesn’t count.
So all the good folks ( and I mean everyone, for and against) that took the time to answer the surveys and participate in the input process, in good faith, had their time wasted and trust stomped on again. All our input is not being considered valid.
The Plan consult and development is as advertised to continue through to the end of 2019. AEP staff did say that at the end of February or at any time for that matter, the Minister can do an Order in Council to put any part or the entire plan in place.

[59whiskers]

Same as gun control issue attitude. Some say fine, take away hand guns cause I only own rifles. The NDP is using this against access. Next it will be hunting privileges for licenced hunters. At this rate, all of us will be bowling, not hunting.

[Wrongside]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I am just confused because when you look at the individuals (Randy Newberg, Steve Rinella, Remi Warren, Joe Rogan) and the organizations (Seek outside, Schnees, Yeti, First Lite) who support BHA I am a bit suspicious that anyone could say they are an anti-hunting front for Y2Y. It just doesn't really seem to hold water.

Those individuals and companies are all American. Their public land, conservation, and access issues are completely different than ours. I've had many discussions with American BHA supporters who don't understand my reservations in supporting BHA here in Canada. They simply don't understand how much public land we have/had access to... And how quickly we are losing it.

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

Bingo!

And Y2Y is most certainly anti hunting, if any of you don’t believe it, dig deeper. And yes, BHA is affiliated with Y2Y.

x2!!

Originally Posted by Bub

Not to stir the pot, rather an observation: OHV's and backpack hunting have nothing to do with one another.

Respectfully, I completely disagree. Me and my buds have combined OHVs with backpacking. And horses with backpacking. And trucks with backpacking. It's good to have choices.

Additionally, I believe the posters who have alluded to OHV use for hunting in this thread, are mostly hinting toward the fact that we all grow old, and won't be able to climb mountains and hills with a heavy pack on forever.

[caddisfly7]

The only thing I'll miss about OHVs is the look the rider gives me when he passes me walking out with a heavy pack

I like Wildland Provincial Parks honestly, really like them. I don't like the proposal of additional infrastructure however. Don't like how parts of the Castle are turning into a concrete jungle with the addition of new highways and infrastructure, but I like it when the Wildland stays untouched and I can hunt without a quad passing me.

I'll get a little worried and active if a more liberal state/province would ever ban all hunting across the board, which is unlikely. The likelihood of hunting ever being banned in Alberta for myself, my children or my grandchildren, is low.

Just like mostly everyone else's reply on here, this is simply my opinion and what I enjoy personally.

Here is something else to think about, the economic value of hunting in Alberta: https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/csi12823/$FILE/Volume-III-Value-of-Nature.pdf

[Joe Black]

No need to ban hunting. Just stop reasonable access and ability to random camp and it will stop occurring. Then be prepared to step over each other in the accessible areas left