Northwest Species at Risk (NWSAR)

[play.soccer]

albertanwsar.ca

Anyone see or hear of this? Posting from mobile cause I cant wait to get to my desktop.

In short basically the NDP and liberals want to shut down northern AB.

6 counties involved and they're counties lots of folks hunt in.

[mxz1997]

Yep. This is a huge deal and nobody is blinking an eye. The plan is to permanently close 1.6 million acres to industry including hunting and trapping. How this isn’t in the headlines I don’t know but it sure will be once it’s too late.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by mxz1997

Yep. This is a huge deal and nobody is blinking an eye. The plan is to permanently close 1.6 million acres to industry including hunting and trapping. How this isn’t in the headlines I don’t know but it sure will be once it’s too late.

Well without digging into it at all I can already tell you why it isn't in the news.

[Flight01]

Thanks for the link. Just reading it now.

I won’t be too bold before I read all the info ..... but.... closing an area to hunting and trapping does not sound like a good Caribou (wolf) management plan.

I agree with reducing industry footprint, de-linearising areas(closing up old seismic lines and abandoned pipeline right of ways and old roads. )

But do not agree with closing areas to hunting and trapping.

These are my general thoughts.
Yes I will read on and decide what I think of this particular website and situation once I’m up to speed.

The lower Athabasca river plan has been developed for the Caribou over here. As I recall it was too create a very large wildland park ( basically north from Winifred lake to the Clearwater and most land east of the Christina river to the Saskatchewan border.....

But again thanks for the link.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Flight01

Thanks for the link. Just reading it now.

I won’t be too bold before I read all the info ..... but....

Famous last word....





Took me two minutes at the website to prove that ignorance runs amok.

[roughneckin]

Does anyone have the link to the Government picking this exact area for possible closure? This site is the fight against it but they have no direct link that I could find to the reasoning why.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Look at BC and their “blue list” species same thing happening over there. It will happen over here and what are we going to do about it?

[Peterupnorth]

The massive shutdown of land area to economic and recreational use deals only with the first of many "species at risk". This does not only refer to public lands but private land as well. Government is already looking at areas involving the Grizzly and barn swallow in addition to the Caribou.
This has turned into a serious gong show....elections can't come soon enough.

[KegRiver]

Today I got a paper in the mail from NWSAR.
It turned out to be an appeal for me to sign a petition to protest the formation of a Park that has been proposed as mentioned in previous posts.

I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to jumping on band wagons.
This was all news to me, I had not seen this thread or read anything in the news or online about any of this.

Being the skeptic I am, first thing I wanted to know is who NWSAR is.
As mentioned, it turns out they are local government counselors.
Last I heard that wasn't a recognized qualification for making wildlife management decisions or recommendations for that matter.

I know a number of counselors in the proposed area. A couple of them are decent folks but not exactly experts on wildlife management. The others are nothing I'd want my daughters to marry.

Moving past that, I thought maybe this is something I may want to oppose.
Is this park really needed? And, why is this new park a bad idea?
The only answer I could gather from reading NWSAR literature and website seems to be that it will possibly reduce tax revenue to affected counties and maybe cost a few oilfield workers and logging crew workers their jobs.

How many is hard to say. NWSAR seems to claim that it will cost all logging industry workers their jobs and that is highly unlikely I think.

That got me to wondering, what is the truth here?
Are these people experts on wildlife management?
And why do these counselors choose to call themselves the NWSAR council?

It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to call themselves the LGCOTTNP. Local Government Counselors Opposed To The New Park.

Are they trying to deceive me? Kinda looks like it to me.

I don't like being deceived or attempts to deceive me.

I may yet stand in opposition to this proposed new park, or maybe not.

But if I do stand against it, it will be independent of the NWSAR efforts.


Honestly, I don't have a lot of faith in this government. I have even less in any group that would try to hide behind what appears to be a deliberately deceptive title and exaggerated claims.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by roughneckin

Does anyone have the link to the Government picking this exact area for possible closure? This site is the fight against it but they have no direct link that I could find to the reasoning why.

From what I have read, an exact location has not yet been chosen. As of December 2017 this was simply a proposed plan.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3925791/a...caribou-herds/

As near as I understand, the uproar started with the release in June of a report to the government on possible courses of action to deal with the supposed reduction in the remaining Woodland Caribou herds.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3925791/a...caribou-herds/

It looks to me as though NWSAR responded to that report as though it was a fete accompli, the media reported what these amateur politicians claimed.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3572602/a...omic-concerns/

Notice that the above article says Alberta communities weigh in on plans to protect caribou, not small town politicians weigh in on plans to protect caribou .

More reading that may be of interest.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ment-1.4458396

I was not able to find any maps or descriptions of where the proposed new parks might be. Probably because at this point nothing has been finalized.

The best I could do is a map of the known Woodland Caribou herds ranges.



As near as I understand it, there is no single park planed, rather the plan proposes to set aside areas within the various Caribou herd ranges.

Is the proposed plan a good idea? I don't know and I don't know enough to advise anyone on how to respond to the current hysteria.

This government says they will consult with industry and residents.

I remind everyone that they said the same thing about their proposed farm safety plan, just before coating it with sand and lye and then rammed it down farmers throats.

[Tactical Lever]

I suspect it all ties into agenda 21 of which 178 out of 191(?) countries are signed on to.

The UN has let our soft headed leader know that Canada is falling behind the rest of the world (likely!!) for land set aside for species protection.

If you read the proposed plans, it's outlined that 23% of AB is or was supposed caribou habitat. Of that percentage, they want to close off 65% at least to be zero impact.

Read that as no hiking, camping, hunting, or industry. No joke or hyperbole; it says it in plain language. A couple of our friends are already moving, as it appears highly likely that the mill will shut down.

There is already people blocking access to hunters down the ANC due to "caribou habitat". Somehow oilfield traffic doesn't count.

I believe that there is some habitat blocked to the natives that they used to hunt up around Cold Lake right now.

Sent from my XP7700 using Tapatalk

[HunterDave]

Interesting stuff, Keg. I’m going to have to read the links that you posted. It’s not in my stomping grounds but not very far north from here either. I’m sure that the Trappers with Traplines up that way are very concerned and on top of this. I know that I’d be.

[KegRiver]

I agree Dave, I am very concerned with what this government is doing or may do and I haven't trapped any amount in years.

I know of Caribou within a few miles of us, at least two herds.
Calling them herds however is a bit misleading. For me that word conjures up images of hills black with animals. These herds appear to be small family groups. The closest seems to be made up of about ten individuals.

That being said, I hear you on the concern that this government might use the few remaining animals as a way to exclude human presence from large tracts of land. Including long developed land.

My concern is not efforts to protect the remaining Caribou, that has been ongoing since at least the 1980s when I worked the oilfields.
What concerns me is the heavy handed, empty headed way this government goes about archiving it's goals.

I would like to see the Caribou protected as much as is practical, and I'm not against restricting some access or most activities in close proximity to the remaining herds.
However, I am strongly against declaring all habitat within their known range, off limits, and I believe that it is reasonable to suspect that this government might do just that.

As I said, we have a small herd a few miles from us. They call a small patch of undeveloped land surrounded by farm land, their home.
By small I mean a couple of square miles of land.

From what I am seeing, these animals do not need huge tracts of land to survive, nor do they seem to need total exclusions of humans.
It appears to me that what they need is protection from unrestricted hunting and some protection from predation by Wolves and Bears.

Neither of which would be greatly effected by any new parks or new rules.
Wolves and poachers do not respect park boundaries last time I looked. And they sure don't abide by human laws.

My last concern is this government letting foreign governments or foreign groups decide our wildlife policies.
This is foolish in the extreme but I fear it is exactly what this government may do.

One last thought. Our Caribou are very closely related to European Reindeer.
I think we are all familiar with their relationship with humans.

Not so long ago no one could imagine Moose living in the Prairies or Coyotes thriving in our cities. Now both are common.

Science does not know a lot about these Caribou. Research into their lives up to now has mostly been done in libraries in the big cities.
It's hard to find collage graduates willing to live in mosquito infested swamps for half the year and in tents when it is -40 outside for the other half the year.

I don't think this government has any idea what these Caribou need or what is best for them and I'm afraid they will irreparably damage northern communities in their haste to impress the yuppie crowds in Europe.
And do nothing that actually helps the Caribou.

We need to do something for these Caribou, but it has to be done wisely.
Banning guns will not prevent murder and making a new park or system of parks will not save the Caribou.

[sjemac]

It seems that some of you should actually read the report before going all crazy about it. The recommendation is specifically that the area not be closed to industry and hunting and that is why they do not want provincial Parks established. They seem to be actually looking for some real planning when people make decisions as to what is going to happen there. They specifically recommend a concentrated effort to reduce predator numbers in the area as well as an effort put towards recovering the bison herds to put less pressure on caribou by subsistence hunters. I don’t see much indication of them “shutting the area down” that people seem to be interpreting.

[Big Grey Wolf]

Caribou restricted areas have been in Alberta for probably 20 years. Roads into Deep Valley, Kakwa, Little Smokey etc have had guard shacks and gates manned 24/7 stopping all rif /raf like hunters accessing the areas. Only welders and other oilfield workers could pass through the gates.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Caribou restricted areas have been in Alberta for probably 20 years. Roads into Deep Valley, Kakwa, Little Smokey etc have had guard shacks and gates manned 24/7 stopping all rif /raf like hunters accessing the areas. Only welders and other oilfield workers could pass through the gates.

We have roads in this area that are and have for a long time been controlled in the same fashion.
I first encountered them in the late 1980s.

I suspect they are in part why many are so concerned.

My thought is, what's next. Clearly this government intends to do more. So if controlled access in areas currently utilized by Caribou isn't enough, then what?

I don't doubt that the Caribou "herds" are under threat, from wolves more then anything. But I doubt very much that a new park would solve the problem or any problems.

And I'm not against a new park in of itself. My concern is the people behind this proposal.

I don't trust them, not even a little.

Every year the Association of Agricultural Societies has a convention. Every year this government sends members of government to spread sunshine at that convention. I've been there every year they have been in power.
Rachel herself was there two years ago.

The more I listen to them speak the less impressed I am, and I didn't like them since before they got elected.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

We have roads in this area that are and have for a long time been controlled in the same fashion.
I first encountered them in the late 1980s.

I suspect they are in part why many are so concerned.

My thought is, what's next. Clearly this government intends to do more. So if controlled access in areas currently utilized by Caribou isn't enough, then what?

I don't doubt that the Caribou "herds" are under threat, from wolves more then anything. But I doubt very much that a new park would solve the problem or any problems.

And I'm not against a new park in of itself. My concern is the people behind this proposal.

I don't trust them, not even a little.

Every year the Association of Agricultural Societies has a convention. Every year this government sends members of government to spread sunshine at that convention. I've been there every year they have been in power.
Rachel herself was there two years ago.

The more I listen to them speak the less impressed I am, and I didn't like them since before they got elected.

Keg,

All I can offer in this situation, at this point is my thoughts.

AOF and our people here represent thousands of voices - and if things like this go unchallenged we will all slowly begin to loose our rights and privileges.

It really might be a time for us to mobilise and use our membership in ways where we can support the mandates and interests of hunters, trappers, outdoors people and fishermen.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by EZM

Keg,

All I can offer in this situation, at this point is my thoughts.

AOF and our people here represent thousands of voices - and if things like this go unchallenged we will all slowly begin to loose our rights and privileges.

It really might be a time for us to mobilise and use our membership in ways where we can support the mandates and interests of hunters, trappers, outdoors people and fishermen.

I agree.

I'm reluctant to oppose any initiative that aims to protect an endangered species, at the same time I have grave concerns about this plan.

First, as mentioned, I don't trust this government. Second, to the best of my knowledge, there has been little to no research done on these animals.
We don't know what parts of the environment they utilize, what they eat and how sensitive they are to human activity in any more then a general sense.

I would like to see the population increase but whatever is done must be done intelligently. If not, any effort is bound to waste money, adversely and unnecessarily negatively impact humans and other wildlife.

Having watched this government ram unnecessary farm safety legislation down the throats of farmers I have little faith in this governments ability to wisely implement and Caribou protection plan.

I am willing to back any well thought out plan, and I am anxious to oppose any foreign inspired knee jerk shot in the dark ideas this government comes up with.

I am not impressed with NWSAR so they do not have my support.
If anyone knows of another group opposing this plan, I'm all ears.

I encourage everyone, do your research, find out as much as you can about the subject before making up your mind.

Let us not pick each other apart this time. Let's make informed decisions. Let us choose wisely. And let us respect other's informed decisions even when they disagree with ours.

[Big Grey Wolf]

An interesting example of demise of the caribou occurred in McBride area of BC. In the 1920's trappers mentioned major herds of 100 or more caribou and no moose. Then moose numbers increased and wolf population skyrocketed where the trappers now saw packs upto 40 animals. The large packs would kill for fun and leave as many as 15 dead moose or deer in one night killing spree.
The grizzly that were only found high in mountains also migrated down to valleys.
The caribou almost totally disappeared from the landscape!!

[NCC]

I held the faint hope that when the video of a single grizzly bear killing 40 or 50 moose calves in one calving season was released, that maybe people would figure out that predators are the main cause when ungulate populations drop.

If it's industrial activity that's causing the caribou to decline, why aren't the herds flourishing in Wood Buffalo, Jasper, the Willmore, Blackstone, Wapiabi, Bighorn, White Goat, Siffleur, Banff, or any of the other millions of acres where there are no Natives, no hunters, and no industry?

Control the population of wolves, cats, and bears, and the population will recover. If you need proof, look at the predator/prey relationship on that island in the Great Lakes. Wolves don't count the caribou and then decide how may pups to whelp. They produce as many pups as they can, kill everything that they can catch, and if they can't find enough to eat, the pups die, and then the adults starve, and then once all of the ungulates are killed, they move onto a new territory and kill or get killed by that resident pack. Poisoning or shooting from a chopper is no worse than the fate of any wolf that dies of natural causes.

[Supergrit]

Did Alberta ever have hunting season for caribou or so when did it shut down?

[walking buffalo]

This thread is leaving me speechless....

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

This thread is leaving me speechless....

If you are knowledgeable about this issue it would be nice if you could offer some insight about it. I'm interested in what's going on but I simply don't have the time to wade through all of the information.

[riden]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

If you are knowledgeable about this issue it would be nice if you could offer some insight about it. I'm interested in what's going on but I simply don't have the time to wade through all of the information.

And there isn't any shame in that.

Wow there seems to be so much information and misinformation out there on this. It's so hard to get a real handle on it, without having to put a ton of work into this.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by sjemac

It seems that some of you should actually read the report before going all crazy about it. The recommendation is specifically that the area not be closed to industry and hunting and that is why they do not want provincial Parks established. They seem to be actually looking for some real planning when people make decisions as to what is going to happen there. They specifically recommend a concentrated effort to reduce predator numbers in the area as well as an effort put towards recovering the bison herds to put less pressure on caribou by subsistence hunters. I don’t see much indication of them “shutting the area down” that people seem to be interpreting.

I looked through the full report; although I did not fully read all 179 pages of it. I also read a few articles on it.

From the report:

2.2.4 Critical Habitat – defining and identifying The national Recovery Strategy for boreal woodland caribou (EC, 2012) has defined critical habitat as the habitat required for a local population to be self-sustaining.9 The location of critical habitat is defined as the entire local population’s range; that provides an overall ecological condition which allows for ongoing recruitment and retirement cycles of habitat, maintaining a perpetual state of 65 percent (65%) as undisturbed.
9 For a small herd to become self-sustaining this requires local populations to achieve a minimum of 100 animals; this provides a 0.7 probability of not reaching a quasi-extinction threshold of less than 10 reproductively active females under stable conditions (EC, 2011).
Northwest Species at Risk Committee (NWSAR) Recommendations for Boreal Woodland Caribou Population Recovery in Northwest Alberta Final: September, 2017
35
SARA, Section 2(1), p.4:
“critical habitat means the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an Action Plan for the species…”
This includes the biophysical attributes required to carry out life processes including calving, post-calving and rutting, wintering and travel habitat. The data for the national Recovery Strategy (2012) suggests that all northwestern caribou herds are already below the critical 65 percent (65%) threshold from existing disturbance (see Figure 4).10Figure 4 provides the total combined disturbance levels for each caribou range within the NWSAR region, as per Environment Canada’s (2012) Recovery Strategy.

That's around page 37, where they outline that 65% is the baseline that they believe (or want us to believe) that we should be at for undisturbed caribou habitat. We do not have that much undisturbed so they want to reclaim it.

I'm not sure what you think of when you hear or read undisturbed habitat, but I find it alarming. Undisturbed means no trails, roads, and with that industry. Could also be taken to mean no trapline, hunting, hiking or camping.

I read somewhere that they are after zero impact. Again, how do you have zero impact and what does that mean for all our outdoor pursuits?

Much of the rest of the report seems to gloss over the critical points, and mention "balance", and social economic factors. I was not at all assuaged by their attempts to inject some "feel good" into it.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by riden

And there isn't any shame in that.

Wow there seems to be so much information and misinformation out there on this. It's so hard to get a real handle on it, without having to put a ton of work into this.

Not as many people talking about it as there should be; and there seems to be a deliberate attempt to keep the details fuzzy.

[Tactical Lever]

So this is how it ends?

I would think that a topic as serious as this would have more discussion.

Have a strong suspicion that our rights and freedoms will not go out with a bang or a shout, but rather a whimper.

[CritterCommander]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4069047/s...ement-science/

This may be somewhat relevant. Same applies for our fisheries.

[Tactical Lever]

Brian Makowecki (acting executive director of the planning branch Alberta Environment and Parks) says:

Currently the government has denied all logging permits to those companies wanting to log on raw land within the caribou range areas.

From a range planning meeting as explained by the County of Northern Lights' Terry Ungarian:

The government came forward originally with 1.8 million hectares of land that would be cordoned off as a conservation area. After the draft came out, the government has now dropped the conservation area to 1.6 million hectares that will be untouchable.

[Tactical Lever]

Missed a rally for it on the 22nd. I'm sure that there's nothing to worry about, though, because WB says so, and Sjemac thinks nobody read the plan anyway.

I'm sure they will use lots of nice conciliatory language when they ram this one home.