First castle, now Bighorn

[Walleyedude]

There is plenty of good information on the "science" at the AOHVA website as well -

www.aohva.com

To my mind this entire issue boils down to philosophy, not science. There's plenty of science and data out there that can be used to fit anyone's bias or agenda. The "science" that's been trotted out so far has really been anything but. It's vague, anecdotal, unreferenced, rife with personal bias and errors, and largely an appeal to emotion rather than logic or true science. It's just a talking point.

OHVs cause environmental disturbance, damage, call it what you will. No reasonable person will deny that. It comes down to compromise, and determining what a reasonable and acceptable level of environmental disturbance is on our public lands. For some that will be zero, for others, it will be anything goes. As Russell Bruder pointed out, there is only one group that refuses to compromise or acknowledge the interests of others as being valid, and that's the "zero impact" crowd of extremists. Like any extremist group, they're vocal, organized, and willing to use pretty much any tactics to get their desired result because they believe their opinion is the only one that is valid.

It's very unfortunate that we've allowed these extreme groups to have such a strong voice in the way our PUBLIC lands are governed and allowed them to overrun any kind of a common sense approach.

[Jadham]

To Walleye:

You raise some interesting points. Unfortunately the economic argument appears to be highly misleading.

The total "economic contribution" of OHV use is an estimate of the direct and indirect costs for the entire province... not say a specific area like the Castle region. It is unclear if closing the Castle region will have any effect on this - likely some, but only a fraction - many OHV users will move their hobby elsewhere (and only a fraction in the whole province use it in the Castle to start with). This is not to say it won't have the potential for some economic loss, but it is likely a small fraction of the 4-5 billion you quoted.

As for the economic impact of other users, the economic derivation is much less clear. You state an estimate of money spent "in provincial parks". So does this mean the indirect costs of other users have been included? What about the sales of mountain bikes/fat tire bikes/skis/snowshoes/tents/camping equipment etc. Goodness knows a good mountain bike is about the price of cheap OHV. Then there are all the other costs, travel, eating out, etc. If you are using indirect economic of OHV use, that should also be included for the other users.

Of course the importance of economics vs. habitat/conservation is always an interesting discussion (or how much of an economic hit is habitat worth).

[5Lgreenback]

Wow, I'd like to say I didn't see this coming earlier with the ignorant "back country use is only allowed for my access and my interests" crowd. Good luck to those back in Alberta trying to get any enjoyment out of life besides having a decent paying job (if your lucky). Virtually the last conservative stronghold in Canada and we're busy destroying each other. Well played lefties, well played.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Jadham

To Walleye:

You raise some interesting points. Unfortunately the economic argument appears to be highly misleading.

The total "economic contribution" of OHV use is an estimate of the direct and indirect costs for the entire province... not say a specific area like the Castle region. It is unclear if closing the Castle region will have any effect on this - likely some, but only a fraction - many OHV users will move their hobby elsewhere (and only a fraction in the whole province use it in the Castle to start with). This is not to say it won't have the potential for some economic loss, but it is likely a small fraction of the 4-5 billion you quoted.

You must have missed the folks from the Castle area who have stated numerous times about how much of their income relies directly on OHV users visiting the area.

As for the economic impact of other users, the economic derivation is much less clear. You state an estimate of money spent "in provincial parks". So does this mean the indirect costs of other users have been included? What about the sales of mountain bikes/fat tire bikes/skis/snowshoes/tents/camping equipment etc. Goodness knows a good mountain bike is about the price of cheap OHV. Then there are all the other costs, travel, eating out, etc. If you are using indirect economic of OHV use, that should also be included for the other users.

There are already a host of nearby areas available to these user groups, the Castle Plan will not provide a measurable economic benefit in these sectors.

Of course the importance of economics vs. habitat/conservation is always an interesting discussion (or how much of an economic hit is habitat worth).

This would be more of a discussion along the lines of "is the current 'science' reliable and unbiased enough to justify the destruction of a significant portion of the local economy".

[Jadham]

Sorry Newview but you are skirting the issue of the cost comparison as presented in Walleye's post as grossly misleading. There were posts from area residents that clearly stated they deride economic benefit from all user groups. How much from each group is not clearly defined, and the "loss" of provincial OHV spending/economic benefit if the Castle is closed is not clear, but certainly far less than 4-5 billion.

OHV users can also use a host of other areas in the province, so that fact isn't unique to any user group.

And the balance of economic benefit/industry vs. conservation and habitat protection is a mix of philosophy, values, economics, and science. I favor a defined PLUZ for OHV users, and have stated this a few times now. How other people "wish" the area to be used/subdivided/etc. is their own opinion.

[Yaha Tinda]

The only responsible thing the government can do is start shutting down these areas. Enforcement was there,they just refused to do their jobs. Bighorn Backcountry for example, conservation officers drove past camps where horses were tethered to trees on the banks of a creek. The users not only left the animal waste along the creek but also left human waste and garbage. Apparently they are used to it in their own yards so see no difference in leaving their disgusting mess for the rest of Albertans.

[halang_99]

hang on it will get worse

[Klondike]

http://www.bhas.ca/2017/02/24/castle...tivist-agenda/

Castle, Livingstone, Porcupines – science justified or activist agenda?
February 24, 2017 Admin
The Castle is to be closed to motorized recreation and random camping despite clear messages from the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan, hereafter “SSRP”, land use process workshops, and repeatedly by Minister Phillips herself, that designated trail systems would remain. Fact is this Minister and the Premier had the Order in Council amending SSRP passed January 20, 2017 that bans OHVs and random camping even though they tout public input into what should be in the Castle that runs through to March 20, 2017. Anyone detect the fix is in and public input counts for close to nothing unless matching the Government’s pet ideology? The Porcupines and Livingstone will be severely cut back in terms of trails along with elimination of random camping. Elevations above 6000’ to be shut down for motorized access to key passes that link to Elkford BC trails. Be aware these land use parameters are to be the template for the rest of AB. As reported in the Herald, per Shannon Phillips, our local Minister of Environment & Parks, this is based on “science”.

Perhaps that claim needs some examination. Linear Footprint, hereafter “LF”, is their “scientific” term for visible linear features on the land. It is deployed as a key driver for eliminating long existing and/or improved trails and thereby traditional user access. Let us look at what constitutes LF. Despite the Minister’s implication that LF is “roads”, it, in fact, under the SSRP includes everything from roads to cut blocks and access links, seismic lines, pipelines, powerlines, O&G well sites and access links, rancher’s access tracks to grazing areas, fence lines, OHV trails and literally anything that appears as a linear feature right down to meandering cow trails. The 2016 Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan states they have no science regarding anything beyond roads, OHVs was a topic for future study, and the primary concern is bear mortality from collisions.

The science related to what is being called LF comes out of the US and its basis is related primarily to highways and their impact on wildlife fatalities. We have all seen signs warning of game crossings on highways. Where migration and game corridors are habitual there may be fencing as well and if deemed critical enough under or over pass infrastructure. We also know that such high risk areas are generally intermittent, not continuous; they are based on studied game movements. Well, the so called SSRP “science” of LF distorts this concept to severely limit trail kilometers by deeming any and all linear features to have continuous and identical impacts. A heavily travelled highway thus has the same weight as a cow trail on game fatality/movement and this is termed “science”?

First there is the matter of physical dimension/magnitude, how much would a wide highway right-of-way of its own deter movement versus say a narrow forestry road, or OHV trail? Observation tells us that even busy highways don’t pose much of a movement restriction as despite preventative measures wildlife crosses and there are fatal collisions. What I am pointing out is that wildlife routinely crosses linear features. And further that wildlife fatalities, a major consideration in such studies, are rare on forestry roads and virtually non-existent on lesser linear features. Most traditional users of the backcountry will tell you that existence of linear features, of themselves, do not curtail game movement and may be routinely used by wildlife.

Intensity of use is not reflected in this LP “science” and that is of utmost importance! A heavily travelled highway is a whole different scenario than a lightly used forestry road, seldom or never used powerline, seismic cutline, or static fence line. The Minister’s SSRP “science” makes no distinction for intensity of activity, or intensity duration of a given LF feature. The “science” is not nuanced by virtue of key game migration patterns/routes or seasonality. There have been no on-the-ground studies of this LF concept in the Castle, Porcupines or Livingstone per Minister’s SSRP staff. Yet the magical illusion of LF “science” will be the primary driver to curtail/limit trails to some factor such as 0.6km of trail per square km, or significantly less as put forward in SSRP workshops. That is not, when it comes to the matter of trails, the Minister’s reported and misleading 1 km to 3.5 km per square km related to roads. And does she propose closing of any access roads?

There are also interpretation issues around DNA documented grizzlies in the SW where doubling of prior count numbers seemingly doesn’t count when it comes to population increases as officially reported. Why doesn’t a doubling count – well they are just tourist bears passing through in their immense ranges. Did the previous lower DNA count get massaged reflecting local bears were tourists off in BC and MT –hell no! Also, adjacent land

conservation programs such as Nature Conservancy of Canada lands are excluded deemed irrelevant to game habitat and conservation in the SSRP. In this later aspect one must ask, “So why are public funds used to co-finance this largely tax driven land scheme if conservation claims are unworthy of inclusion by Government re SSRP planning?” And of the 200 threatened species how many are officially specifically so designated and in which of the official threat categories for same?

When it comes to trails and streams there has long been agreement that they should be bridged, or have proper hardened fords for OHV trails and riparian areas are to be avoided as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of contemporary trail design and construction would know. Significant expenditure of volunteer time and funding has been invested in the Castle and beyond by the Crowsnest Pass Quad Squad to do just that. Not the least being the post 2013 Government funded flood rehabilitation trail program in the Castle Carbondale area completed last year. I believe in responsible trails and helped start a Recreational Access Committee with the Oldman Watershed Council, hereafter OWC, to inform how environmentally responsible trails can be compatible with prudent watershed management. Perhaps the Minister should check with Shannon Frank of OWC and their support for responsible OHV trails communicated to us, hopefully that also hasn’t changed.

As both a non-motorized recreationist and a motorized user who has random camped in AB for over forty years, raised my family to responsibly enjoy these pursuits, I regard myself as being environmentally responsible and take exception to this rushed closure dictate. It leaves me with questions. Why is random camping fine if I merely take my tent and walk a few hundred yards into the bush, setup camp where I can enjoy nature, oh, and dig a cat-hole to bury my excrement or if not responsible just make a deposit behind a bush? Is this more environmentally desirable than a self-contained unit? It also appears acceptable to have cattle defecating in our streams and stomping through riparian areas for trivial grazing fees, but that is okay no wheels involved?

I have long promoted environmentally responsible designated OHV trails including proper management, enforcement, training, funding mechanics along with tourism potential thereof. I have worked for same at local, provincial and national levels for over fifteen years. We know how to build responsible trail systems just check NOHVCC for specifics. My experience has been that politicians are consistently deceptive and managed to screw-up even the best and most responsible of past proposals – that hasn’t changed. What has changed is some Albertans have elected an activist environmentalist as Minister of Environment and Parks and a Premier playing green heroine to chosen special interests.

Environmental activists such as Y2Y, CPAWS, AWA and adjuncts seek to shut down the mountain corridor from some traditional uses. That not only includes motorized access, but also effectively impacts hunting and fishing access along with local community economies that depend on access. Their stated and highly promoted scheme is to have the entire mountain corridor made into a continuum of government designated parks, or equivalents, restricting only some traditional users and impacting local communities all along the mountain corridor of AB, BC and YK. Check a map and see how many mountain corridor parks and equivalent set asides we already have in AB against their Y2Y maps. These activist NGOs are the same tax subsidized, grant funded and professionally managed NGOs whose politicalized agendas attack and undermine our critical resource industries.

In my opinion, for this Minister, who conducts herself as a Greenpeace activist, to claim to be objective is moot and her claimed “science” should not be given a free pass as it essentially has been. One-time electoral aberrations should not be allowed to permanently deny traditional responsible current and future public recreational access to public lands. Parks aren’t top of mind when you are trying to survive job losses and the economic morass inflicted on AB. Many if not most Albertans are unaware of what has hit their traditional recreational access and what it means province wide. If this activist driven closure of our entire mountain corridor is so broadly supported as the Minister and Premier purport, hold an Alberta wide referendum with a clear yes or no, question to have been agreed to in advance by the opposition parties. When reasoned input is ignored and doesn’t work votes will!

Barry Harper



https://landuse.alberta.ca/RegionalP...s/default.aspx
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...entral-alberta
http://aep.alberta.ca/files/GrizzlyB...Jun01-2016.pdf
http://www.nohvcc.org/docs/default-s...e.pdf?sfvrsn=2

[Klondike]

http://www.aohva.com/pdf/AOHVA-Advertorial-website.pdf


Friday, February 24, 2017
An open letter to Albertans:
In every jurisdiction where OHV activities occur, it is groups like the Alberta Off-highway
Vehicle Association (AOHVA) who lead the way to promote safe, responsible and
respectable vehicle use. AOHVA is as concerned as anyone about improper OHV use
when it comes to the environment and peoples’ safety.
Most riders consider it a privilege – not a right - to be able to ride their OHVs and enjoy
Alberta’s outdoors and natural landscape. It’s a privilege for ALL users: hikers, cyclists,
skiers, snowmobilers, campers and OHV riders to access and enjoy our province’s wide
open spaces.
Outdoor pursuits, including OHV riding are considered a way of life for many Albertans.
Families, people of all ages from multiple generations, actively enjoy Alberta’s public
lands through the opportunities that OHV riding presents. This is one of the few outdoor
activities that can engage an entire family, spanning multiple generations, in the great
outdoors at the same time.
We believe that parks in Alberta should be for all Albertans to enjoy and, as such, they
should be inclusive rather than exclusive.
The AOHVA and responsible OHV users support the creation of multi-use parks and we
propose that the government rethink the blanket ban on OHV use in The Castle. We
support a solution that strikes a balance between environmental stewardship and
recreation opportunities. AOHVA has worked diligently and in collaboration with the
government for the past 7 years to establish a dedicated and focused organization to
ensure the appropriate development, enhancement and maintenance of user-funded,
designated trails for all off-highway recreation enthusiasts in Alberta.
AOHVA’s recommendations incorporate key learnings from across North America,
where various jurisdictions have implemented innovative approaches to creating,
managing and sustaining shared trail networks. We and our member organizations
follow internationally recognized trail building best practices to mitigate environmental
impact, protect animal habitat and ensure places to ride are safe.
As the representative body for over 165,000 off-highway vehicle users in Alberta, we are
in the best position to help our government bring about positive change but is our
government ready to work with us rather than fight with us?
The AOHVA has always been ready to do our part. Is our government?
Sincerely,
Brent Hodgson, President
Alberta Off-highway Vehicle Association (AOHVA)
If you value Alberta’s wide open spaces and your opportunity to enjoy them, now is the
time to Be Informed, Get Engaged and Take Action.
Visit AOHVA.com and find us on Facebook. I encourage you to write to the Premier, the
Minister and sign the petitions.
Let’s Share Alberta responsibly and respectfully – and keep recreational trails open to
all Albertans.
Alberta Off Highway Vehicle Association (AOHVA)
T: 403.673.3332; Information: info@aohva.com; Administration: office@aohva.com

[Headwaters]

Maybe it would be a good idea if people stuck to the truth. The only restrictions being talked about at on off highway vehicles and random camping. Not hunting. Not fishing. Not firewood gathering. Not camping. As a hunter and fisherman, anything that stops all those idiots out there from destroying the habitat my fish and game rely on and making it impossible to go anywhere without running into mud holes and gullies is a good thing. And anything that brings an end to those endless squatter camps in what used to be good elk meadows is a good thing. Hunters and fishermen are supposed to be conservationists. We should be cheering anything that restores habitat and makes it possible to hunt and fish in peace again.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by Headwaters

We should be cheering anything that restores habitat and makes it possible to hunt and fish in peace again.

Until they say you can no longer hunt and fish. Oh well, at least they didn't start with your activity. Some folks will never get it.

[RZR]

Originally Posted by Headwaters

Maybe it would be a good idea if people stuck to the truth. The only restrictions being talked about at on off highway vehicles and random camping. Not hunting. Not fishing. Not firewood gathering. Not camping. As a hunter and fisherman, anything that stops all those idiots out there from destroying the habitat my fish and game rely on and making it impossible to go anywhere without running into mud holes and gullies is a good thing. And anything that brings an end to those endless squatter camps in what used to be good elk meadows is a good thing. Hunters and fishermen are supposed to be conservationists. We should be cheering anything that restores habitat and makes it possible to hunt and fish in peace again.

You should read the hunting regs and see what it says about hunting in provincial parks, because a big portion of the castle area is classified as a provincial park. Let us know what you read about provincial parks and hunting in them.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Headwaters

Maybe it would be a good idea if people stuck to the truth. The only restrictions being talked about at on off highway vehicles and random camping. Not hunting. Not fishing. Not firewood gathering. Not camping. As a hunter and fisherman, anything that stops all those idiots out there from destroying the habitat my fish and game rely on and making it impossible to go anywhere without running into mud holes and gullies is a good thing. And anything that brings an end to those endless squatter camps in what used to be good elk meadows is a good thing. Hunters and fishermen are supposed to be conservationists. We should be cheering anything that restores habitat and makes it possible to hunt and fish in peace again.

You are not seeing, or avoiding, the big picture. The forces behind the movement fighting for this park are not in favour of hunting and fishing.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Taco

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

The trails you are talking about were the trails that were put there by logging, so if you are so worried about it why did they allow logging in the first place. I think that you are one of those individuals who is done pillaging the land because your too old to get around in the hills, therefore you turned naturalist and think that no one else should be able to use the land the way you used to. There was another hypocrite that was about an hour south of that did the same thing when he got to the age where he could no longer enjoy the country. Have good day there D R!!

[Taco]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

The trails you are talking about were the trails that were put there by logging, so if you are so worried about it why did they allow logging in the first place. I think that you are one of those individuals who is done pillaging the land because your too old to get around in the hills, therefore you turned naturalist and think that no one else should be able to use the land the way you used to. There was another hypocrite that was about an hour south of that did the same thing when he got to the age where he could no longer enjoy the country. Have good day there D R!!

Blanket assumptions based on minimal information really is a poor life skills practice.

Knees are a bit wonky though and I have recently started medication for mild adult onset asthma

[Taco]

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Taco

How ironic,

"Have your say! Comment on the draft parks management plan."

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by Taco

They were also a place for responsible ATV use until the government changed its mind.

[LKILR]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

They were also a place for responsible ATV use until the government changed its mind.

You can blame irresponsible ohv use for the closure. Can't blame guys like TACO and myself. Just because we applaud the change you shift you hate towards us. But is should be pointed in the direction of those who abuse the privilege of OHV use.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by LKILR

You can blame irresponsible ohv use for the closure. Can't blame guys like TACO and myself. Just because we applaud the change you shift you hate towards us. But is should be pointed in the direction of those who abuse the privilege of OHV use.

So you acknowledge that the irresponsible are to blame. You are also acknowledging that a total OHV ban is the best solution. Why don't we ban hunting because of poaching? It is the same logic.

[LKILR]

Originally Posted by Newview01

So you acknowledge that the irresponsible are to blame. You are also acknowledging that a total OHV ban is the best solution. Why don't we ban hunting because of poaching? It is the same logic.

Please stop comparing OHV users and hunters. I think most hunters who do not use OHVs are happy to not have them around. I don't support a full ban. I think responsible OHV use should be permitted in a responsible way. But don't include all hunters in you fight to retain your privileges. Peace.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by LKILR

Please stop comparing OHV users and hunters. I think most hunters who do not use OHVs are happy to not have them around. I don't support a full ban. I think responsible OHV use should be permitted in a responsible way. But don't include all hunters in you fight to retain your privileges. Peace.

Many hunters are OHV users and vice versa.

Don't in(ex)clude all OHV users in your support of the Castle plan.

The logic for both user groups / issues at hand is the same.

[Taco]

Hell I wish we had a Bob Marshall in Alberta. 1,009,356 acres of no roads, no motors or mechanical equipment. Only ever spent 18 days in The Bob but it was heaven

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Taco

Hell I wish we had a Bob Marshall in Alberta. 1,009,356 acres of no roads, no motors or mechanical equipment. Only ever spent 18 days in The Bob but it was heaven

Ever heard of the Willmore? Or the other 1,000,000s of back country acres that you can visit, inaccessible by OHVs?

[LKILR]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Ever heard of the Willmore?

We need a Wilmore in the south west. What would be the harm in that??? Oh some of you lazy bums won't be able to see it cuz you rely on your OHV to haul your butts around. Lol.

[sjd]

Originally Posted by Newview01

You are not seeing, or avoiding, the big picture. The forces behind the movement fighting for this park are not in favour of hunting and fishing.

The big picture is that we as hunters are being seen as being anti-conservation by opposing a park that explicitly says it will allow support hunting. Where's the congratulations from the AFGA to the government for protecting wildlife habitat and acknowledging hunting as a legitimate use of parks?

Instead we get alliances with ATVs and a "we'll they might take away our rights later". Willmore is a great park and there have been no attempts to ban hunting.

It's all pretty sad. Know our history - AFGA used to be a leading voice in the establishment of parks in Alberta. Seems like the conservation ethic is at pretty low ebb in our community right now.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by sjd

The big picture is that we as hunters are being seen as being anti-conservation by opposing a park that explicitly says it will allow support hunting. Where's the congratulations from the AFGA to the government for protecting wildlife habitat and acknowledging hunting as a legitimate use of parks?

Instead we get alliances with ATVs and a "we'll they might take away our rights later". Willmore is a great park and there have been no attempts to ban hunting.

It's all pretty sad. Know our history - AFGA used to be a leading voice in the establishment of parks in Alberta. Seems like the conservation ethic is at pretty low ebb in our community right now.

I'd say the conservation ethic is almost none existant, on this board. I do not think this board represents a true picture of sportsmen in this province though. The last government had a survey and Alberta spoke. I know I had my say.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by LKILR

We need a Wilmore in the south west. What would be the harm in that??? Oh some of you lazy bums won't be able to see it cuz you rely on your OHV to haul your butts around. Lol.

FYI I do not own an OHV, I prefer walking when I hunt.

You have acknowledged that there are plenty of areas for the non OHVers. So why push for more?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by sjd

The big picture is that we as hunters are being seen as being anti-conservation by opposing a park that explicitly says it will allow support hunting. Where's the congratulations from the AFGA to the government for protecting wildlife habitat and acknowledging hunting as a legitimate use of parks?

Instead we get alliances with ATVs and a "we'll they might take away our rights later". Willmore is a great park and there have been no attempts to ban hunting.

It's all pretty sad. Know our history - AFGA used to be a leading voice in the establishment of parks in Alberta. Seems like the conservation ethic is at pretty low ebb in our community right now.

This park plan is not about OHVs, when will you people realize this.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by LKILR

You can blame irresponsible ohv use for the closure. Can't blame guys like TACO and myself. Just because we applaud the change you shift you hate towards us. But is should be pointed in the direction of those who abuse the privilege of OHV use.

Don't own a OHV and don't hate either of you, not sure how you got that impression but I can see how easily the acceptable recreational activities can be changed on a whim,much easier to once the area is a park.