A day of action!: Make a call, sign a petition for the Highwood Headwaters
I can't think of any circumstances where one could say logging the headwaters of a watershed is sound forestry management.
Today is a day of action; please make a call - took me less than 2 minutes - and let the minister of Agriculture and Forestry that the clear-cutting ought to be stopped, or at least put on hold. 310-0000 https://www.loveyourheadwaters.ca/kananaskis Thanks, Smitty |
Thanx for posting this.
Petition signed |
This is Y2Y (Yellowstone to Yukon)
Regardless of thoughts about logging, I cannot and will not support any Y2Y initiative. Their goal is to close ALL access no matter the user group. Please read up on them before you sign and make an educated and informed decision before just signing because of an alarmist website. |
Quote:
Speaking of becoming educated and informed, let's have a look shall we?: https://y2y.net/about-us/faq https://y2y.net/about-us/policies/y2...fishing-policy Nowhere does it say "close ALL access no matter the user group". |
Quote:
That being said, Y2Y Isn't going to be a group I could ever support. I encourage all to do their research first. If you are comfortable with your review of the organization then I'll respectfully disagree. I will agree with you that conservation is important. Thx |
Never figured you for a conspiracy theorist Diver. Btw I've done my research.
And my view on clearcut logging? Fire or clearcuts, take your pick. Neither are very pretty and logging is easier to control |
Quote:
I'd like to think I'm a pretty level headed guy that doesn't subscribe to the national enquirer and things like that. If you dig deep enough, the root of Y2Y wants a utopian band of land completely off limits to man. They start with saying that selected wildlife refuges are needed for diversity and Genetic preservation. Then they say that selected native hunting is ok for their 'rights' but nowhere do they ever support hunting for the regular Joe. Especially if you add 'trophy' to the discussion. They are well connected on many levels. But as far as I'm concerned they are a cancer that has no best interest for true outdoorsmen. I will respect other viewpoints of course but I won't stand by without challenging what I've found in the hopes of getting others to review for themselves and come to their own conclusions. |
Diver,
In my old age I have come to judge things in a case by case issue to issue manner. While I support some of the things that the Y2Y initiative to accomplish their Highwood anti logging stands is not one of them. |
Well, I ask you to indulge me with a little education. My initial reaction is to wonder how clearcutting on top of creeks (or anywhere for that matter) can be a good thing? Perhaps I have been doing selective reading for most of my life (confirmation bias), but I thought it was pretty clear that erosion and habitat destruction consequences from clear cutting are a given.
Also, I think I need some further info about Y2Y, as there is nothing on their website or that I've heard in the media that would lead me to the conclusion that they are anti-fishing and hunting. An excerpt from their website policy: "Y2Y recognizes that hunting, trapping, and fishing: • are indigenous rights; • are part of the cultural heritage and economy of the Yellowstone to Yukon region; • are appropriate activities within the Yellowstone to Yukon region, provided that they are conducted in an ethical manner that includes fair chase principles; and • may be appropriate means to help maintain or manage fish and wildlife population health" They go on to add a piece in their policy about the need for sanctuaries, but I have never heard that they are pushing to make areas like the Castle or K-Country entirely "no hunt/no fish" zones. What am I missing? |
Quote:
Why is it that Environmentalists and folks interested in preserving and maintaining ecological balance to the best of human ability get maligned and bashed? Ignorance, stupidity and fear ( of something taken away that should be a "god given right") seem to be major factors. Thanx for providing the links Smitty. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Taco:
My understanding is that forests evolved to deal with fire. And the after-effects of fire versus clear-cutting are different. So, my poison is...fire. |
Ask the people in Slave Lake, Fort Mac or BC's interior the same questions.
|
Quote:
The problem with using such a broad paintbrush to stereotype environmentalists is then turnabout is fair play, right? I have no doubt that many environmentally oriented organizations have some radically inclined members. At the end of the day, I choose to judge them by that THEY choose to publish as their official stances on a variety of issues under the full scrutiny of the public spotlight. They publicly state they are not against any of things they are regularly accused of and are bashed for. And if they tried to engage in a public conversation about ending public access, ending hunting and fishing, I would naturally fight tooth and nail against that. Circling back to the early point about broad paintbrushes, I find it interesting that so much misinformation gets freely bandied about without being challenged. The AO forum generally leans to the right; there are far more liberal and ndp bashing than on the right side. Fair enough. No one (certainly not I) has a problem with that. Or if I did, that's life. Everyone seems to find a place these days on the 'net. But it makes me chuckle and shake my head when posters often trumpet "get informed and educated"; like they are masters or occupiers of the exclusive domain of being "correct" and "informed" as if it belongs to those who only agree and confirms their biased worldview. Stated differently, in short, I suppose the equivalent of accusing the environmentalists of having this "hidden, conspiratorial" agenda is the exact flip of the coin on the other side. In other words, I guess every WR, PC, and UCP supporter is fan of white nationalism, state-sponsored Christianity, permanent inequality for women and the LGTBQ community. Because those radical elements DO exist in the right wing. Shall we judge them and every policy issue based on the minority? Just who is being victimized here by the tyranny of the minority then? Wait...too broad a brush? :) Public discourse is best served when people choose to look past their own worldviews and confirmation biases and, instead, apply equally standards of scrutiny and rational thought to every issue. No? Happy Trails, Smitty P.S. Anyways, after de-railing my own thread, I'll stand with the original point. Made the phone call, signed the petition, glad I did it. Cross one bridge at a time. |
Quote:
|
K
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Conspiracy theory hogwash. |
Quote:
http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.ca/arc...ts-jun-17.html |
Well, I have had time to have a good read of all three of the Wolf articles written by Mr. Miskorsy. Frankly, they come off as less investigative journalism than they do as op-ed pieces. I'm not sure which was his intent. The first one was actually a fairly sound read, and started to show some interesting connections, albeit difficult ones to make firm conclusions from. Then the second article is premised with "The research is never-ending and the dots are near impossible to connect." Alrm bells... an interesting caveat to start of things off with.
By the third one, the assertions and connections have gone completely off the rails in my opinion. It is intimated that if a group opposes _his_ agenda, then they clearly have no place at the political/public/consultation tables in our province. He uses a pretty broad and non-discriminate brush to conclude that the "green agenda" in Alberta is led by groups who wants to exclude all human activity from protected areas, and states "These are groups that can not be allowed to make or participate in the decision making." Which groups are those? The articles paint issue with many groups from UNESCO (and anyone that would waste their time to support their vision), to the Alberta Conservation Association and even Mountain Equipment Co-op. Are these the groups he's referring to that shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion? Perhaps he might believe I shouldn't be allowed to put my forth opinion either, as I filled out the survey to state my support for many of the elements of the plan for protection of the Castle... ergo I supported something that Y2Y supports... ergo I must support everything Y2Y has ever stated, and ultimately Dave Foreman and eco-terrorism. As mentioned by another poster above, false equivalence seems to be the flavour of the day. |
Well, I have had time to have a good read of all three of the Wolf articles written by Mr. Miskorsy. Frankly, they come off as less investigative journalism than they do as op-ed pieces. I'm not sure which was his intent. The first one was actually a fairly sound read, and started to show some interesting connections, albeit difficult ones to make firm conclusions from. Then the second article is premised with "The research is never-ending and the dots are near impossible to connect." Alrm bells... an interesting caveat to start of things off with.
By the third one, the assertions and connections have gone completely off the rails in my opinion. It is intimated that if a group opposes _his_ agenda, then they clearly have no place at the political/public/consultation tables in our province. He uses a pretty broad and non-discriminate brush to conclude that the "green agenda" in Alberta is led by groups who wants to exclude all human activity from protected areas, and states "These are groups that can not be allowed to make or participate in the decision making." Which groups are those? The articles paint issue with many groups from UNESCO (and anyone that would waste their time to support their vision), to the Alberta Conservation Association and even Mountain Equipment Co-op. Are these the groups he's referring to that shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion? Perhaps he might believe I shouldn't be allowed to put my forth opinion either, as I filled out the survey to state my support for many of the elements of the plan for protection of the Castle... ergo I supported something that Y2Y supports... ergo I must support everything Y2Y has ever stated, and ultimately Dave Foreman and eco-terrorism. As mentioned by another poster above, false equivalence seems to be the flavour of the day. |
https://postmediacalgaryherald2.file...ananaskis.jpeg
What ever , anyone who uses wood or wood products that support Y2Y are hypocrites . Looked at the maps on where there going to cut and it's not that bad. They aren't bitching when it's not happening in their back yard. Same old drivel about the poor grizzly bear and elk , well guess what it's creating habitat similar to a burn only it leaves a buffer around the water ways . |
Quote:
----------------------------------- Back on topic - I feel torn on this one. Completely natural management of these forests isn't going to work as lodgepole stands are going to burn every 80 or so years. That's not a great thing when you have a lot of people around. On the other hand, There's a very real danger of devastating fisheries. These really are fragile ecological areas. It would be nice to see people able to work together for a change. I don't doubt that an ecologically sensitive forestry management plan could be implemented but it seems like people (on either side) are pretty entrenched and refusing to budge. |
Y2Y - why sTo bad?
This sounds like a good cause to me, so I was surprised to hear all the vitriol surrounding Y2Y. Try as I may, I can't find *ANYTHING* credible on the internet that supports the bold negative allegations some posters are making about them. Is this all just "Trump"-ed up fear mongering, or is there actually some credible proof that Y2Y is out to blockade the wilderness from all of us hunters and fishermen? Seems like some sketchy allegations being made here...
|
Quote:
The term does have a catchy, fear mongering, right wing, extremist sort of tone that is catchy in headlines and a great way to pigeon hole environmental groups. The ones not doing things the "Right" way. I can respectfully disagree with anyone against Y2Y. |
I can't wait to see these areas Logged or set on fire.
Kananaskis is in desperate need of some true ecosystem management. Stop crying cause you think a monoculture of evergreen trees is what nature intended or needs. You're wrong. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.