Enforcement ramps up on public land

[sjd]

Interesting information from Government

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...71FEF5AC8A5A6E

Say what you will about this government, they have put more focus on protecting public land from abuse than any previous government in Alberta. Sad they don't get more credit for it on here.

Report says 6,800 charges and warnings last year out of 77,000 public land interactions with the public. 9% bad apples - I wish the fines were higher and more charges and less warnings. Still a lot of slobs out there.

[dmcbride]

Should have increased enforcement of the Castle area, instead of alienating the largest user group.

But I will applaud the increased enforcement of other areas.

[fargineyesore]

What a joke, they are just trying to look good after screwing a large group of people in the Castle area.

The next election can't come soon enough to get rid of these losers.

[cardshark]

I don't buy it that any of these rules are for "our own safety" and to "protect public land". They are just more excuses for the government to fleece Albertans. Notice how they're all indirect and roundabout ways to address a supposed problem. If the government truly wanted to solve the problems rather than merely fleece and subjugate Albertans they'd take a direct route. For example, instead of fining people for speeding, take away licenses/vehicles from people who cause accidents. Same principle applies for unattended fires and forest fires.

[elkdump]

Originally Posted by cardshark

I don't buy it that any of these rules are for "our own safety" and to "protect public land". They are just more excuses for the government to fleece Albertans. Notice how they're all indirect and roundabout ways to address a supposed problem. If the government truly wanted to solve the problems rather than merely fleece and subjugate Albertans they'd take a direct route. For example, instead of fining people for speeding, take away licenses/vehicles from people who cause accidents. Same principle applies for unattended fires and forest fires.

After you smashed up your vehicle(and someone else's) sir, we will impound your smashed up vehicle,

After you carelessly set a million/billion dollar forest fire( wildfire ) sir, we will impound your power saw, your hatchet, and your Bic lighter,

Is it NO wonder we need idiot proofing by way of legislation, ho yah

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by sjd

Interesting information from Government

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...71FEF5AC8A5A6E

Say what you will about this government, they have put more focus on protecting public land from abuse than any previous government in Alberta. Sad they don't get more credit for it on here.

Report says 6,800 charges and warnings last year out of 77,000 public land interactions with the public. 9% bad apples - I wish the fines were higher and more charges and less warnings. Still a lot of slobs out there.

They are radical environmentalists who deserve credit for dividing the people of Alberta more than any other government. They have taken away one of the largest portions of land from a single user group than previous governments.

Swing it however you want, the NDP don't care about Albertans. They make it seem so, but they have their own agenda. You decide if their goals align with yours.

[fargineyesore]

These guys would side with anyone if it agrees with their selfish agendas

[cardshark]

Originally Posted by elkdump

After you smashed up your vehicle(and someone else's) sir, we will impound your smashed up vehicle,

After you carelessly set a million/billion dollar forest fire( wildfire ) sir, we will impound your power saw, your hatchet, and your Bic lighter,

Is it NO wonder we need idiot proofing by way of legislation, ho yah

Stupid comment from you.

My point is merely that people who cause problems (like accidents, forest fires) should be the ones punished, not people who do an activity (like speeding, leaving fires unattended) and don't cause any problems.

I don't care what the exact punishment is. You can kill offenders for all I care. I suggested that people who cause accidents could lose their right to drive or own a vehicle (permanently).

[fallen1817]

Originally Posted by cardshark

Stupid comment from you.

My point is merely that people who cause problems (like accidents, forest fires) should be the ones punished, not people who do an activity (like speeding, leaving fires unattended) and don't cause any problems.

I don't care what the exact punishment is. You can kill offenders for all I care. I suggested that people who cause accidents could lose their right to drive or own a vehicle (permanently).

Wouldn't it be better to take a more proactive approach, as opposed to a reactive approach?

I think it would be better to say "If you speed, you get a fine" rather than "if you speed AND cause an accident, you will get a fine."

To each their own... You have your opinion and I have mine.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by fallen1817

Wouldn't it be better to take a more proactive approach, as opposed to a reactive approach?

i agree. sometimes people use guns in violent crimes

[fallen1817]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

i agree. sometimes people use guns in violent crimes

Valid point.. I guess it drives home that each situation is more of a case-by-case basis, and there isn't a blanket solution for all problems.

[Pekan]

I believe in enforcement of rules.
You don't have to be an NDP'r to want to see rules enforced.

[cardshark]

Originally Posted by fallen1817

I think it would be better to say "If you speed, you get a fine" rather than "if you speed AND cause an accident, you will get a fine."

Driving fast and causing accidents are actually two unrelated things and should be treated as such. Like eating chocolate and causing accidents. Or owning guns and being a murderer (great example from fish_e_o).

Here is the logic behind enforcing speed limits: "Some % of the population can't drive effectively at high speeds, so we'll limit everyone to driving at low speeds." It's a lowest common denominator approach which we'd expect will make people worse drivers over the long run (and perhaps require further lowering the speed limits). Society is made much less efficient for the sake of the worst drivers.

(And yes, the same logic can go for guns: some % can't own them without murdering others, so take them away from everyone!)

Originally Posted by fallen1817

Wouldn't it be better to take a more proactive approach, as opposed to a reactive approach?

We already have somewhat of a proactive approach: we have a driving test that everyone has to go through to get their license. However, I don't think it's very effective. I think it focuses on the wrong things (following petty rules) instead of the real crux of the problem (good judgement in driving). Perhaps it could be improved. Perhaps we could have some kind of robust virtual reality test in the future. One problem is that we're politically correct so we won't want to deny anyone a license even if by objective standards they are lousy at driving (we are way too much in the lowest common denominator mindset of equality and fairness to everyone).

We also already have a reactive approach: insurance which increases when you cause an accident. But it's obviously not costly enough if we still consider accidents a big problem (I'm not sure that we should - I think the problem is blown out of proportion precisely because the government wants to use it as an excuse to further fleece and regulate the people; a small amount of accidents should always be expected - "vision zero" is absurd).

[cardshark]

Originally Posted by Pekan

I believe in enforcement of rules.
You don't have to be an NDP'r to want to see rules enforced.

Correct, you just have to be someone who figures he personally benefits from the enforcement of rules (perhaps someone who hates his neighbors' freedoms and wants to see them suffer at the hands of law which won't affect you personally).

[Joe Black]

wonder how many of those designated to enforce the rules are dedicated to ensure the public is safe from vigilante eco-terrorists stringing up barb wire?

[Okotokian]

Well it's hard not to look good when the previous government's enforcement efforts dealing with the despoilers of our public lands and waterways amounted to pretty much ZERO. Only time big fines were levied was when private groups were forced to take polluters to court. I didn't vote NDP the last election, and I won't the next one either, but whatever the PC's and WR come up with better take at least a few lessons from the current government on this file.

[sjd]

Originally Posted by cardshark

Correct, you just have to be someone who figures he personally benefits from the enforcement of rules (perhaps someone who hates his neighbors' freedoms and wants to see them suffer at the hands of law which won't affect you personally).

Wow really? Wanting laws enforced to prevent abuse of public lands means you want to curtail freedoms? Soft on crime now? I want my kids to enjoy an untrashed landscape.

Check out some of the photos of abuse on the government's enforcement page.

http://aep.alberta.ca/about-us/compl...reporting.aspx

[elkdump]

Originally Posted by cardshark

Stupid comment from you.

My point is merely that people who cause problems (like accidents, forest fires) should be the ones punished, not people who do an activity (like speeding, leaving fires unattended) and don't cause any problems.

I don't care what the exact punishment is. You can kill offenders for all I care. I suggested that people who cause accidents could lose their right to drive or own a vehicle (permanently).

Killing offenders is NOT a stupid comment ?

and that's the best you can come up with ?

If YOU think I am stupid ? I am Flattered by the compliment

[cardshark]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Well it's hard not to look good when the previous government's enforcement efforts dealing with the despoilers of our public lands and waterways amounted to pretty much ZERO. Only time big fines were levied was when private groups were forced to take polluters to court. I didn't vote NDP the last election, and I won't the next one either, but whatever the PC's and WR come up with better take at least a few lessons from the current government on this file.

Could it be that the PC's and WR didn't do anything about it because there's not really a problem? I mean, people are already fined for causing forest fires last I checked, and the vast majority of damage is not caused by humans:



Even among the damage caused by humans, I speculate (haven't found any data) that damage caused by unattended camp fires are a tiny chunk of that. I suspect that out-of-control burns, unsafe attended camp fires and intentional fire starting would be bigger causes. I have personally experienced 2 burns that got out-of-control. I've left camp fires unattended many times under safe conditions and never had a problem.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by cardshark

My point is merely that people who cause problems (like accidents, forest fires) should be the ones punished, not people who do an activity (like speeding, leaving fires unattended) and don't cause any problems.

So the behavior causing something shouldn't be illegal? Only if it causes injury or harm?? I think you need to think about that concept a little more. So taking a rifle and shooting carelessly into bush or around buildings, or up in the air, or into crowds, should only be cause for enforcement action once someone has been shot? If no one gets hit, no harm no foul?

And doing 150 km an hour or making a left on a red light would be allowed, but if someone got hurt, then a charge. Glad I don't live in your proposed world.

Oh geez, I forgot for a second. You're the guy that likes it when people die. I forgot. Nevermind. Continue.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by sjd

Wow really? Wanting laws enforced to prevent abuse of public lands means you want to curtail freedoms? Soft on crime now? I want my kids to enjoy an untrashed landscape.

Check out some of the photos of abuse on the government's enforcement page.

http://aep.alberta.ca/about-us/compl...reporting.aspx

Looks like we need to ban firearms, camping chairs, and garbage by the looks of those pictures. More specifically, shotshell hulls are clearly to blame.

[Okotokian]

We complain about garbage strewn post-May-long party sites, poachers, etc. And we complain about government doing anything about it.

[cardshark]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

So the behavior causing something shouldn't be illegal? Only if it causes injury or harm?? I think you need to think about that concept a little more. So taking a rifle and shooting carelessly into bush or around buildings, or up in the air, or into crowds, should only be cause for enforcement action once someone has been shot? If no one gets hit, no harm no foul?

Speeding does not cause accidents.
Shooting randomly causes accidents (according to the statistical probability of someone being in the bullet's path).

Subtle difference in your analogy there.

If we did to hunting what we've done to driving, it would only be legal to hunt with a pellet gun. Just because some people had bad shots when hunting and so we outlawed everyone from hunting with higher calibers. And now the government goes around fining people who hunt with a 30-06. People with lousy shots are still causing injuries and deaths using pellet guns, but they aren't the ones being punished!

"No harm no foul" I generally do agree with. Although obviously some reason has to be applied. Society should not knowingly allow extremely risky fringe actions that have little reward/value associated with them.

Originally Posted by Okotokian

And doing 150 km an hour or making a left on a red light would be allowed, but if someone got hurt, then a charge. Glad I don't live in your proposed world.

One thing that really aggravates me is intersections with a green turning light that then change to red while straight through traffic remains green. If there's no oncoming traffic people ought to be able to turn left, but no... just because a few people were too stupid to turn left without causing a head-on collision, therefore the rest of us aren't allowed to turn left either! I think people should be allowed to turn left on red lights if there's no other traffic anywhere near the intersection. I'm surprised we're still allowed to right right on a red light, surely a few idiots have caused accidents doing that?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

We complain about garbage strewn post-May-long party sites, poachers, etc. And we complain about government doing anything about it.

We are complaining about knee jerk overreactions.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Newview01

We are complaining about knee jerk overreactions.

So are you having difficulty with the laws, or the enforcement of the laws?

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

So are you having difficulty with the laws, or the enforcement of the laws?

Selective enforcement.

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by cardshark

Could it be that the PC's and WR didn't do anything about it because there's not really a problem? I mean, people are already fined for causing forest fires last I checked, and the vast majority of damage is not caused by humans:



Even among the damage caused by humans, I speculate (haven't found any data) that damage caused by unattended camp fires are a tiny chunk of that. I suspect that out-of-control burns, unsafe attended camp fires and intentional fire starting would be bigger causes. I have personally experienced 2 burns that got out-of-control. I've left camp fires unattended many times under safe conditions and never had a problem.

So true. Maybe the previous governments recognized the tree huggers arguments for what they are, BOGUS!! But now that intellectually challenged voters brought in the NDP, you have the usual "government knows best" crowd that now think that our environment is being destroyed.

What I'd like to see is ramped up enforcement on fishermen and hunters, and target shooters, as THEY are the ones most affecting our wildlife.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

So are you having difficulty with the laws, or the enforcement of the laws?

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

Selective enforcement.

Exactly.

I have said many times, the enforcement would pay for itself. Previous governments chose not to enforce, and now the NDP are overreacting, but it also conveniently fits their agenda.

[alta270]

Funny that people were yelling for more enforcement in the Castle, and now, when there is an announcement of more enforcement, many of the same people are crying foul.

Sweethearts, ya can't have it both ways.

[Joe Black]

I, for one, am in favour of enforcing the ban of all barb wire strung across legal quad trails(as I stated earlier). My stance has not changed on this.