Bighorn country park

[Huk]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Nothing you said has anything to do with this subject

Limiting access in any form shouldn’t be acceptable
It’s public land! Treat it with respect and abide by the rules and there is no problem. Removing access because people want a more rustic experience should be the lowest priority

As for being an ambassador, you have quite the user name... are you sure it’s ok for you to represent a trade marked and copy written name? Unless your name is Clark or jay you might want to change it. And if you are Clark or jay then you know who I am and we don’t really have to argue

Perhaps the douchiest thing written in this entire thread. "Do you know who I am!?!?" LOL

[Joe Black]

Douchiest is not recognized by wikipidea, and as such, is not a real word.

[landowner]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I sincerely hope they walk back the back-country huts.

Times 2

[RZR]

Originally Posted by Huk

I've spent lots of time in the zone, far away from trails thank you. You seem to think you know a lot about me.

I know all about the predation issues and overgrown timber. I also know the best elk habitat has all the trails through it. If you think all that OHV activity doesn't push elk around and exacerbate the predation and habitat issues you're a lost cause.

I don’t think it pushes Elk around and if you reall think it does, your a dreamer. The prairie elk don’t get pushed around by farm equipment or people driving around, so what makes you think Mountain Elk would act any differently. Especially with all the trees for cover.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by Huk

Perhaps the douchiest thing written in this entire thread. "Do you know who I am!?!?" LOL

Weird flex for sure.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

Another well reasoned and articulate response from Mark.

I think you need to re-calibrate, pal. Guys like me are not your enemy. I use my quad too, but I also see the impacts that I, you, others have. Suggesting that guys like me should go to Banff or Jasper because we believe in reasonable restrictions in certain areas suggests to me you care more about your own personal enjoyment of the land and resources than the future of them. That kind of mindset troubles me because if enough guys take that view it paints hunters as "takers" rather than contributors to conservation and wildlife management. We often like to pat ourselves on the back with respect to our role in the recovery and sustainability of North American wildlife (often rightfully so), but we live in a what have you done for me lately world, and I worry that a vocal portion of hunter's is undermining our ability to stand up and say hunter's are leading the conservation charge. Moving forward it is going to be increasingly difficult to argue to a non-hunting public that hunting continues to have a role to play in modern society if are actions don't match our conservation rhetoric.

Well said.

We need more conservationists among our outdoorsmen. Lots of guys who call themselves outdoorsmen don’t really care about wildlife, habitat or the future of hunting on here. In the end it will be these selfish, short sighted a holes that will put the last nail in the coffin of hunting. For the fence sitters, shove your “we got to stick together bs”. Wake the hell up. The habitat and wildlife is number one, without hunters support of it, the ability to enjoy it is going to disappear for future generations of hunters. We need to keep walking back the use of atvs until it has minimal disturbance to wildlife and habitat.

[jednastka]

Originally Posted by Huk

You'll have to forgive my vehement disagreement.

I hate the NDP probably more than most but that was good work they did in the Castle. It was Yahoo city in the summer and during hunting season. OHV nutbars chasing animals all over the place. I would even say there are too many trails that still allow OHV use.

Heaven forbid we have a few places where it takes a little bit of exercise to get into where you can actually interact with nature without hearing the whine of a dirt bike or have trails rutted up everywhere.

And let me point out, you go north across highway 3 and there is basically unlimited quad access in good country still available.

Could not agree more.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

As for you name. Some people are creative and come up with some fantastic ideas. Others are sheep that try and capitalize off others hard work

You're probably right, Marky Mark.....

MV5BOTE0NmQ2MzctNGY2Mi00NjJmLWJjYWMtMDk3NzdmNzA0YzU5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjM4ODc4NDU@._V1_UY268_CR40,.jpg

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[RZR]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

Another well reasoned and articulate response from Mark.

I think you need to re-calibrate, pal. Guys like me are not your enemy. I use my quad too, but I also see the impacts that I, you, others have. Suggesting that guys like me should go to Banff or Jasper because we believe in reasonable restrictions in certain areas suggests to me you care more about your own personal enjoyment of the land and resources than the future of them. That kind of mindset troubles me because if enough guys take that view it paints hunters as "takers" rather than contributors to conservation and wildlife management. We often like to pat ourselves on the back with respect to our role in the recovery and sustainability of North American wildlife (often rightfully so), but we live in a what have you done for me lately world, and I worry that a vocal portion of hunter's is undermining our ability to stand up and say hunter's are leading the conservation charge. Moving forward it is going to be increasingly difficult to argue to a non-hunting public that hunting continues to have a role to play in modern society if are actions don't match our conservation rhetoric.

HYPOCRITE!! Have you killed anything, because if you have your a taker. In the eyes of the tree huggers your just as bad if not worse than the ATV guys. So your right about the “what have you done for me lately”. I want the forest all to me and no one else should be allowed to use it. If you want true conservation then why don’t you want to push for making the entire forestry to be made into an ecological reserve. That would be the true meaning of a conservationist.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Huk

Perhaps the douchiest thing written in this entire thread. "Do you know who I am!?!?" LOL

Orrrrr
Maybe I’m not some random internet know it all and we’ve really known each other for decades

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by RZR

HYPOCRITE!! Have you killed anything, because if you have your a taker. In the eyes of the tree huggers your just as bad if not worse than the ATV guys. So your right about the “what have you done for me lately”. I want the forest all to me and no one else should be allowed to use it. If you want true conservation then why don’t you want to push for making the entire forestry to be made into an ecological reserve. That would be the true meaning of a conservationist.

What reason do you possibly have for misrepresenting my posts? Perhaps it is easier to argue your own distorted version of what I am saying vs making a cogent arguement against the reasonable ATV restrictions.

I am an "ATV guy" in that I own and use one. That doesn't mean I think it should be my god given right to drive to every piece of public land. I am capable of stepping back and acknowleging that ATV's have an impact and that like everything reasonable policies should be put in place for the benefit of wildlife and habitat. Furthermore, you act like restrictions on "public land" is a new idea. National Parks are public land, prince's island park is public land, Bob Creek is public, the Bighorn is public. These ideas are not new.

Now as far as your perspectives on conservation, I can't really help you. I will say that I truly hope your views grow and develop to a point where you realize it doesn't have to be protect everything or protect nothing. As I said earlier we need nuanced approaches.

Obviously you are passionate enough about hunting and fishing you are on a message board, but hunting doesn't continue by accident (particularly in a modern world). We have to manage habitat, wildlife and humans. ATV restrictions are just part of that puzzle. If everywhere becomes accessible then we all lose.

This isn't about me or you it is about sustainability for coming generations.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[Talking moose]

Well, by reading the last couple pages of this thread I’ve learned that some people want ohv to certain places and some people don’t want ohv access to certain places. Shall we move on? Or are you guys still trying to change the world by attempting to change the mind set of others?

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by bdub

Well said.

We need more conservationists among our outdoorsmen. Lots of guys who call themselves outdoorsmen don’t really care about wildlife, habitat or the future of hunting on here. In the end it will be these selfish, short sighted a holes that will put the last nail in the coffin of hunting. For the fence sitters, shove your “we got to stick together bs”. Wake the hell up. The habitat and wildlife is number one, without hunters support of it, the ability to enjoy it is going to disappear for future generations of hunters. We need to keep walking back the use of atvs until it has minimal disturbance to wildlife and habitat.

Give me 1 example of where giving up opportunities has benefited outdoorsman?

Did you ever think that these closures dramatically lower the predator hunting in these zones? I was cougar hunting in the bighorn last year. There is tons of them in there. Now you want to limit access even more?

What does accessing areas by ohv have to do with habitat lose or wildlife?
None of that is changing? No one is clear cutting forests for trails or knocking down mountains to build cities? These are wild areas that everyone wants to keep wild.

[Joe Black]

Ps. " lots of area north of highway 3 you can still ride"

Wrong. About 70 % of existing trails have been shut down with the livingston plan. but keep saying that if it you think it will make your argument stronger

I know ranchers east of the castle wildland zone that have witnessed the amount of elk being pushed out of the forest onto ranch land since the closures double or triple, along with the wolf, bear and cougar sightings increasing that amount.

Lack of activity via access by quads has given the predators a free for all in the castle parks.

Sure. Great hunting for now if you like predator hunting, till they kill everything and die as well.

[Jjolg123]

C'mon so over run by predators that they will kill off everything and then die off themselves.. animals will be just fine on there own don't need our intervention. Lots of people acting like they know what's best... We have been responsible for the eradication or far more species than any predator has. Fact is the more people in the province, the more rules there is going to have to be.. it's actually scary as it's only going to get worse as Alberta grows.

[Joe Black]

You don't know much about Wolves

[Huk]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Well, by reading the last couple pages of this thread I’ve learned that some people want ohv to certain places and some people don’t want ohv access to certain places. Shall we move on? Or are you guys still trying to change the world by attempting to change the mind set of others?

Yeah you're probably right. Things did get a little heated. That'll be it from me. Hope everyone has a great weekend and gets outside...even if it's on an ATV.

Cheers

[TheIceTitan]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

Another well reasoned and articulate response from Mark.

I think you need to re-calibrate, pal. Guys like me are not your enemy. I use my quad too, but I also see the impacts that I, you, others have. Suggesting that guys like me should go to Banff or Jasper because we believe in reasonable restrictions in certain areas suggests to me you care more about your own personal enjoyment of the land and resources than the future of them. That kind of mindset troubles me because if enough guys take that view it paints hunters as "takers" rather than contributors to conservation and wildlife management. We often like to pat ourselves on the back with respect to our role in the recovery and sustainability of North American wildlife (often rightfully so), but we live in a what have you done for me lately world, and I worry that a vocal portion of hunter's is undermining our ability to stand up and say hunter's are leading the conservation charge. Moving forward it is going to be increasingly difficult to argue to a non-hunting public that hunting continues to have a role to play in modern society if are actions don't match our conservation rhetoric.

You'd be surprised at how liberal many "conservatives" are when it comes to their own poor behaviour.

[baticus]

Originally Posted by Huk

I've spent lots of time in the zone, far away from trails thank you. You seem to think you know a lot about me.

I know all about the predation issues and overgrown timber. I also know the best elk habitat has all the trails through it. If you think all that OHV activity doesn't push elk around and exacerbate the predation and habitat issues you're a lost cause.

Didn't claim to know anything about you actually.

If ohv's push elk and other ungulates around, wouldn't that also happen to push predators around? Last I checked, ohv's haven't made predator populations drop.

I wont deny that a handful of people have had a direct hand in trail degradation. There are always people that push the boundaries, or think the rules don't apply to them. I have reported people in the past, with video evidence to support it. To my knowledge no one was ever prosecuted for their actions.

[Huk]

Originally Posted by baticus

Didn't claim to know anything about you actually.

If ohv's push elk and other ungulates around, wouldn't that also happen to push predators around? Last I checked, ohv's haven't made predator populations drop.

I wont deny that a handful of people have had a direct hand in trail degradation. There are always people that push the boundaries, or think the rules don't apply to them. I have reported people in the past, with video evidence to support it. To my knowledge no one was ever prosecuted for their actions.

Hey man, I appreciate you're reporting people. I've called F&W to report guys on quads riding where they shouldn't be as well. The guys saying there is a lack of enforcement are right. The more we can all be on top of getting after the bad actors, the better.

I'll do a quick mea culpa here. Instead of slinging mud, I should have just quoted actual studies and let everyone decide what to believe for themselves...so for everyone I was rude to, I apologize.

As for all the squawking back and forth about whether or not OHVs affect elk behaviour. I'll just leave these here:

https://www.recpro.org/assets/Librar...eport_2007.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...e_Deer_and_Elk

From what I have read, and listened to on several podcasts where wildlife biologists were interviewed is that increased pressure of any kind on ungulate populations causes them to burn more calories and spend less time eating. This leaves them more vulnerable to predation during the winter, and especially during calving. You shouldn't take my word for it. Do your own research and if your mind isn't changed, then that's fine too.

Based on the above I wouldn't ever claim predator populations would drop due to OHV use. My understanding is that the pressured elk, now weaker than they otherwise would be are easier prey for the predators. This would presumably allow predator populations to increase. I'm sure there have been studies done on this, so feel free to look for one to see if I'm wrong.

Cheers

[Joe Black]

Hey, those that want to validate their opinions can find all sorts of propaganda created by academics that need to justify their existence.


SO increased human activity by building overnight huts deep into the elk migration corridors, which will be visited year round, will be ok?

Or does human interfernce in the castle not cause the elk to run and burn calories, leaving them more susceptible to predators?

Just wondering.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

Hey, those that want to validate their opinions can find all sorts of propaganda created by academics that need to justify their existence.





SO increased human activity by building overnight huts deep into the elk migration corridors, which will be visited year round, will be ok?



Or does human interfernce in the castle not cause the elk to run and burn calories, leaving them more susceptible to predators?



Just wondering.

I would never speak for Huk, but given his prior posts I doubt he would be in support of backcountry huts in the castle either.

From the few studies I have read on the subject and from several podcasts I have also listened to I think it is reasonable to suggest there would also be a similar but likely smaller impact with increased foot traffic. Just given the noise and speed of ATV's vs hikers on foot.

That was my main issue with the NDP proposal. They were more than willing to restrict ATV users (largerly a rural demographic) under the guise of conservation, while at the same time spending 700,000 to build huts for a granola urban population (the NDP base) that will undoubtedly have negative impacts on the purported goals of the wildland park. It seemed disingenous to me.

I get the frusteration with some of the science, but it is the best information we have to equip us to make fact based decisions. I struggle with some of the politicized stuff as well, but what is our alternative when making management decisions?

The ATV stuff is clearly contentious, but I think the middle ground is usually the best place to start. We have pro ATV guys politicizing the debate by claiming there is an attempt to steal public lands from Albertans (factually incorrect). We also have individuals that would support a unilateral decision to shut down ATVs in the foothills (effectively ending a historical activity in the Province). We all have to play in the same sandbox, but I look at the historical proliferation of trails and ATV use and think a balanced approach is the only sustainable way to move forward. Just seems like good policy.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[RZR]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I would never speak for Huk, but given his prior posts I doubt he would be in support of backcountry huts in the castle either.

From the few studies I have read on the subject and from several podcasts I have also listened to I think it is reasonable to suggest there would also be a similar but likely smaller impact with increased foot traffic. Just given the noise and speed of ATV's vs hikers on foot.

That was my main issue with the NDP proposal. They were more than willing to restrict ATV users (largerly a rural demographic) under the guise of conservation, while at the same time spending 700,000 to build huts for a granola urban population (the NDP base) that will undoubtedly have negative impacts on the purported goals of the wildland park. It seemed disingenous to me.

I get the frusteration with some of the science, but it is the best information we have to equip us to make fact based decisions. I struggle with some of the politicized stuff as well, but what is our alternative when making management decisions?

The ATV stuff is clearly contentious, but I think the middle ground is usually the best place to start. We have pro ATV guys politicizing the debate by claiming there is an attempt to steal public lands from Albertans (factually incorrect). We also have individuals that would support a unilateral decision to shut down ATVs in the foothills (effectively ending a historical activity in the Province). We all have to play in the same sandbox, but I look at the historical proliferation of trails and ATV use and think a balanced approach is the only sustainable way to move forward. Just seems like good policy.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

You better get rid of the cattle and the guys that ride horses while your all worried about the Elk. The city folk don’t understand that the animals get used to all traffic weather it be on the prairies or the forest.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by RZR

You better get rid of the cattle and the guys that ride horses while your all worried about the Elk. The city folk don’t understand that the animals get used to all traffic weather it be on the prairies or the forest.

The science I have read and the biologists I have listened to seem to disagree with you. You are right about cattle and horses though. They also have an impact. Not nearly as many horse guys though, and there are significantly barriers to entry that prevent it from proliferating like ATVs have.

It is likely that prairie whitetails and muleys get pressed more too, but with the productivity of farmland there could still be a net gain. We have also created an artificial predator prey relationship in the prairies. Western eastern slope elk populations do not have either of those advantages. Pressure be it on foot, by horse or by ATV likely has a greater impact in the foothills than in ag fields.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

The science I have read and the biologists I have listened to seem to disagree with you.


Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

That's not the same bio's that counted the g-bears is it? I put about as much stock in some of their opinions as I do of those who visit the areas talked about for the odd weekend out of the city and believe they have it all figured out

What is a podcast and where do I find one? They seem like a valuable source of information....

[RZR]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

The science I have read and the biologists I have listened to seem to disagree with you. You are right about cattle and horses though. They also have an impact. Not nearly as many horse guys though, and there are significantly barriers to entry that prevent it from proliferating like ATVs have.

It is likely that prairie whitetails and muleys get pressed more too, but with the productivity of farmland there could still be a net gain. We have also created an artificial predator prey relationship in the prairies. Western eastern slope elk populations do not have either of those advantages. Pressure be it on foot, by horse or by ATV likely has a greater impact in the foothills than in ag fields.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

Elk would have it easier in the forest they have all those trees to hide in, and a single trail going through the forest wouldn’t effect the Elk like some bio would have you believe. Stop and think about what your saying. I’ve watched Elk when ATV’s were comeing down a trail, and the Elk didn’t even skip a beat when the ATV’s went by. The guys on the ATV’s didn’t even know they rode by the Elk.

[Huk]

Originally Posted by RZR

Elk would have it easier in the forest they have all those trees to hide in, and a single trail going through the forest wouldn’t effect the Elk like some bio would have you believe. Stop and think about what your saying. I’ve watched Elk when ATV’s were comeing down a trail, and the Elk didn’t even skip a beat when the ATV’s went by. The guys on the ATV’s didn’t even know they rode by the Elk.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...e_Deer_and_Elk

Some interesting tidbits from the USDA Forest Service and Oregon F&W department study link above:

"Interestingly, the maximum probability of flight was approximately 0.65 for the treatments, meaning that about 35 percent of the time elk did not exhibit a flight response when close to an off-road activity. Most likely the response depends on local topography, cover, and other factors that we have not yet analyzed as part of our flight response model."

- the above seems to support your observation of elk not reacting to ATVs, although the probabilty of them doing so was only 35% in this particular study

"Movement Rates of Elk Movement rates of elk were substantially higher during periods of all four off-road activities as compared to periods of no human activity (Figure 2). Responses of elk to the morning and afternoon runs were clearly evident, with the most pronounced increase in movement rates observed during the hours when each off-road activity occurred"

"For the morning pass, movement rates of elk were highest during ATV riding, second-highest during mountain bike riding, and lowest during hiking and horseback riding (Figure 2). Movement rates of elk also stayed higher, over a longer period, during the afternoon ATV run, compared to lower rates during afternoon horseback riding, mountain bike riding, and hiking."

"Flight Responses of Elk The estimated probability of elk flight from a human disturbance was highly dependent on distance. When elk and humans were close to one another, the maximum probability of a flight response was approximately 0.65 during ATV, mountain bike, and hiking activity, and about 0.55 during horseback riding (Figure 3). Higher probabilities of flight response occurred during ATV and mountain bike activity, in contrast to lower probabilities observed during hiking and horseback riding (Table 1). Probability of a flight response declined most rapidly during hiking, with little effect when hikers were beyond 550 yards (500 m) from an elk. By contrast, higher probabilities of elk flight continued beyond 820 yards (750 m) from horseback riders, and 1,640 yards (1,500 m) from mountain bike and ATV riders"

"Movement Rates of Deer In contrast to elk, mule deer showed less change in movement rates during the four off-road activities compared to the control periods"

"Conclusions and Interpretations Elk Movement rates and probabilities of flight response for elk were substantially higher during all four off-road activities compared to control periods of no human activity. Consequently, off-road recreational activities like those evaluated in our study appear to have a substantial effect on elk behavior. The energetic costs associated with these treatments deserve further analysis to assess potential effects on elk survival. For example, if the additional energy required to flee from an off-road activity reduces the percent body fat of elk below 9 percent as animals enter the winter period, the probability of surviving the winter is extremely low (Cook et al. 2004). Animal energy budgets also may be adversely affected by the loss of foraging opportunities while responding to off-road activities, both from increased movements, and from displacement from foraging habitat. These potential effects will be evaluated as part of future analyses"

[Huk]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I would never speak for Huk, but given his prior posts I doubt he would be in support of backcountry huts in the castle either.

From the few studies I have read on the subject and from several podcasts I have also listened to I think it is reasonable to suggest there would also be a similar but likely smaller impact with increased foot traffic. Just given the noise and speed of ATV's vs hikers on foot.

That was my main issue with the NDP proposal. They were more than willing to restrict ATV users (largerly a rural demographic) under the guise of conservation, while at the same time spending 700,000 to build huts for a granola urban population (the NDP base) that will undoubtedly have negative impacts on the purported goals of the wildland park. It seemed disingenous to me.

I get the frusteration with some of the science, but it is the best information we have to equip us to make fact based decisions. I struggle with some of the politicized stuff as well, but what is our alternative when making management decisions?

The ATV stuff is clearly contentious, but I think the middle ground is usually the best place to start. We have pro ATV guys politicizing the debate by claiming there is an attempt to steal public lands from Albertans (factually incorrect). We also have individuals that would support a unilateral decision to shut down ATVs in the foothills (effectively ending a historical activity in the Province). We all have to play in the same sandbox, but I look at the historical proliferation of trails and ATV use and think a balanced approach is the only sustainable way to move forward. Just seems like good policy.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

Well allow me to open another can of worms...this should be a doozy

I should preface this by saying I spent two years living in New Zealand where they have literally hundreds of backcountry huts. The original reason they were built was for deer cullers and trappers who had previously been using canvas tents which were absolutely miserable at handling New Zealand's notoriously wet weather.

Currently the huts are managed by New Zealand's department of Conservation and vary between serviced huts that include outhouses (some have stocked firewood) and rustic huts that are up to the users to maintain. The huts are usually $5 per night for non serviced huts and $15 per night for the service huts. Payment is on an honour system. The busier huts are usually booked in advance, whereas most are first come first served. Most, if not all have mattresses in the bunks (rubberized outside so they don't get gross)

I stayed in both types during my stay there and to be honest they were awesome. Some of the more popular, touristy hikes have very nice huts which are mostly frequented by people doing several-day hikes.

The less popular huts are MOSTLY frequented and used by hunters/trappers, spending several days in the bush. The VAST majority of huts belong in this category. To be clear, hunters are easily the the most frequent users of huts.

Some of the huts are evenly frequented by both hunters and nature enthusiasts.

I will say that New Zealand's non hunting community is generally very accepting and friendly towards hunters, likely due to the reality that their game species are introduced and are not beneficial to the native ecology. My favourite hut I visited I ran into more hikers than hunters who were all extremely nice to me and eager to talk hunting. I shot two red stags based out of that hut and you can bet on my next trip it'll be on my list of places to stop in.

So, keeping all of that in mind, I'm not antagonistic to the idea of huts here in Alberta. If rolled out properly and done the right way I think it could be awesome for both hunters and non-hunters.

HOWEVER, I don't think the Castle is the place it should be rolled out. First of all, I think if it was something the government was going to do, it should be rolled out in places where hunting is already not permitted. Think provincial parks like west side of k country etc. This would hopefully give the granola munchers a place to go and keep them out of areas more frequented by hunters.

If the decision was made to put huts in places like Castle, it would need to be made explicitly clear to the non-hunting community that those huts would be primarily used by hunters during the September through December period. It would also require a REAL enforcement strategy to catch and discourage the yahoo squad.

I'll re-iterate that I'm NOT in favour of the current plan. That doesn't mean huts couldn't be positive.

From what I observed in NZ, more people enjoyed and valued nature and were more informed because of it. I wouldn't ascribe it all to the existence of huts, but generally there was a wide acceptance of hunting and trapping and I have to think it was (in part) due to the fact that all different types of public land users were interacting and sharing the same roof on a nightly basis all over the country. It was great to see families, sometimes very young kids hiking in to these spots and having genuine family time away from a screen. It also seemed to foster a feeling of ownership amongst the hut users, where everyone did their part to keep the huts in good condition and well maintained for the next people who came through.

All that said, I can understand why our hunting community is skeptical of the Castle hut plan and I share the concerns.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by Huk

Well allow me to open another can of worms...this should be a doozy



I should preface this by saying I spent two years living in New Zealand where they have literally hundreds of backcountry huts. The original reason they were built was for deer cullers and trappers who had previously been using canvas tents which were absolutely miserable at handling New Zealand's notoriously wet weather.



Currently the huts are managed by New Zealand's department of Conservation and vary between serviced huts that include outhouses (some have stocked firewood) and rustic huts that are up to the users to maintain. The huts are usually $5 per night for non serviced huts and $15 per night for the service huts. Payment is on an honour system. The busier huts are usually booked in advance, whereas most are first come first served. Most, if not all have mattresses in the bunks (rubberized outside so they don't get gross)



I stayed in both types during my stay there and to be honest they were awesome. Some of the more popular, touristy hikes have very nice huts which are mostly frequented by people doing several-day hikes.



The less popular huts are MOSTLY frequented and used by hunters/trappers, spending several days in the bush. The VAST majority of huts belong in this category. To be clear, hunters are easily the the most frequent users of huts.



Some of the huts are evenly frequented by both hunters and nature enthusiasts.



I will say that New Zealand's non hunting community is generally very accepting and friendly towards hunters, likely due to the reality that their game species are introduced and are not beneficial to the native ecology. My favourite hut I visited I ran into more hikers than hunters who were all extremely nice to me and eager to talk hunting. I shot two red stags based out of that hut and you can bet on my next trip it'll be on my list of places to stop in.



So, keeping all of that in mind, I'm not antagonistic to the idea of huts here in Alberta. If rolled out properly and done the right way I think it could be awesome for both hunters and non-hunters.



HOWEVER, I don't think the Castle is the place it should be rolled out. First of all, I think if it was something the government was going to do, it should be rolled out in places where hunting is already not permitted. Think provincial parks like west side of k country etc. This would hopefully give the granola munchers a place to go and keep them out of areas more frequented by hunters.



If the decision was made to put huts in places like Castle, it would need to be made explicitly clear to the non-hunting community that those huts would be primarily used by hunters during the September through December period. It would also require a REAL enforcement strategy to catch and discourage the yahoo squad.



I'll re-iterate that I'm NOT in favour of the current plan. That doesn't mean huts couldn't be positive.



From what I observed in NZ, more people enjoyed and valued nature and were more informed because of it. I wouldn't ascribe it all to the existence of huts, but generally there was a wide acceptance of hunting and trapping and I have to think it was (in part) due to the fact that all different types of public land users were interacting and sharing the same roof on a nightly basis all over the country. It was great to see families, sometimes very young kids hiking in to these spots and having genuine family time away from a screen. It also seemed to foster a feeling of ownership amongst the hut users, where everyone did their part to keep the huts in good condition and well maintained for the next people who came through.



All that said, I can understand why our hunting community is skeptical of the Castle hut plan and I share the concerns.

That is interesting about about New Zealand. Sounds like a different approach to hunting and trapping and I would agree that stems from the fact the animals are exotics. Keep in mind that we have many huts too, but our system is privatized them and we call them trappers cabins. Does nzld take a market hunting approach to trapping as well or are there designated areas for each trapper with extensive regulations?

My issue with the NDP plan was that they were selling a false bill of goods. Selling something as a wildland park (stated goals are rustic recreation) and then putting development in the backcountry. I am not totally against a hut to hut system in provincial or national parks were the objectives are different (tourism). I do think there is value in folks having a backcountry experience and I know there are many who would not otherwise get it without four walls and an established trail. Having said this, the Bighorn area is not just the zoo that we see on the trunk road. Any user can hike back to lost guide lake on any weekend in the summer and can largely expect to camp alone. If the government builds a hut next to the lake it becomes a destination and use of the area will increase significantly. I have not done the research to confirm this, but it is intuitive that increased foot traffic will have a similar, but notebly smaller, impact to ATV traffic. So if the goal is to provide additional protections to the land the why would the government choose to develope the backcountry?

I believe backcountry development should be for the parks and should have no place in a wildland park. Wildlands should be wild. Still accessible by any user with the skills and ambition, but not cheapened by making it too easy.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[nimrod]

Bighorn area is not just the zoo that we see on the trunk road. Any user can hike back to lost guide lake on any weekend in the summer and can largely expect to camp alone. If the government builds a hut next to the lake it becomes a destination and use of the area will increase significantly

Possibly not correct, if there is a hut in the back country, then the booking would only allow one person to go there, when they book it, just look at Alaska, they have back country huts maybe not now but in the late 80's they did, that you can book, don't know the traffic in the back country there,


here is there link

http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/aspcabins/index.htm