Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
Are you referring to the 4 points that was linked to?
I actually didn't see that as a real solution. I saw some elements in some of the points, but know, I did not see a pathway to ....
Working with the Government of Alberta, Land Use Framework staff and AOHVA experienced members in designing and developing trails and trail heads that are sustainable and environmentally-sound and repairing damaged trails.
What does AOHVA experienced members mean? I see this as a good start, just not sure what the details are.
Dedicating 100% of a new OHV User Fee to tackling important issues like habitat protection and proper trail construction and maintenance in partnership with AOHVA, Clubs and volunteers under an accountable, transparent AOHVA Service Delivery Structure.
This point is crying out for details on implementation. Is it proposing a DAO? Would the User Fee be area specific? Is there a suggestion that ALL licensed OHV users would have to contribute? This point really says little, and no details are on the website.
Ensuring the Government of Alberta provides law enforcement agencies with the tools and mandate to fully enforce the law.
The mandate is already there. What tools are proposed? What does this mean?
Building a better environmental and trail experience. Alberta can lead the way in OHV trail development by putting the onus on organizations like AOHVA and its like-minded partners to be responsible for environmental stewardship as a means of eliminating improper use of the back country.
This is not an action point at all, but a mission/values statement. In other words, at best this is a 3 point plan.
So, serious discussion on this is welcome. |
I understand what you're getting at normstad, and I don't entirely disagree with your point, more detail is required. I'm sure it's available to some degree, I'll see what I can find.
The problem is though, you have to take the first step before you can take the 100th step. If you can't get cooperation or buy-in at this initial basic concept level, then what point is there in the details? Not that it's what you're doing personally, but I've seen this tactic before - ask for details, more data, more studies, more consultations, etc... ad nauseum, always placing the onus on the other party and never actually acknowledging what's being contributed, only asking for more. In the end, there can never be "enough" data or details to satisfy them, because the answer was predetermined, it's just a stall tactic and designed to burn you out, the ultimate rope a dope.
If you can't get a basic framework agreed to, then how do you know what the goals and details should be? You have to know what the rules are before you start playing the game. The problem is, no one in the government wants to define the rules, they will NOT make a decision or put anything in writing that they can be held to or that will allow the OHV groups to start making proposals based on concrete guidelines. If they did that, then there's a good chance the OHV groups will actually meet those guidelines, and then they can't say no. It's no different than trying to get a pipeline built, if you constantly change the rules or move the goalposts, it's a completely futile effort.
Klondike and others have done a great job of showing what these projects are capable of looking like. It's a win-win for everyone involved if we take these concepts seriously and actually work toward getting the details hammered out.