Castle Wildland Park

[Huevos]

Just got done reading an article on proposed wildland park for castle river area. No atv, no bikes, restricted horse and mountain bike use, but of course the cattle get to stay cause they don't cause any damage. Did I mention no random camping? Where will people go? What are your thoughts? Castle wildland good or bad? They want it all, from waterton to Crowsnest. Apparently more than 75% of area residents(southern Albertans) are for it. Where was I when they asked? I'm thinking they are using the proposed logging in the area to fuel this. I wonder if people know most the area has already been logged and what they see now is what nature does naturally, repair itself.

[ishootbambi]

im all for conservation and saving wild places to remain wild. im also for outdoor recreation in many forms and those guys need a place to do thier thing too. i vote leave it alone. there arent a lot of places to do some of those things in the south already, and there are plenty of places to enjoy solitude and quiet if thats what you prefer.

[walking buffalo]

There needs to be a middle ground between Protection and Development.

Remember, this plan was initiated in response to applications from the ski hill to dramatically expand it's operation. Large hotel, condos, golf courses, water exctraction, sewage ponds....

NRCB initially approved the plan. The fight was on to stop the West Castle from being turned into another Canmore or Fernie.

http://www.ackroydlaw.com/RCSecord/N9201.pdf

[honda450]

Originally Posted by Huevos

Just got done reading an article on proposed wildland park for castle river area. No atv, no bikes, restricted horse and mountain bike use, but of course the cattle get to stay cause they don't cause any damage. Did I mention no random camping? Where will people go? What are your thoughts? Castle wildland good or bad? They want it all, from waterton to Crowsnest. Apparently more than 75% of area residents(southern Albertans) are for it. Where was I when they asked? I'm thinking they are using the proposed logging in the area to fuel this. I wonder if people know most the area has already been logged and what they see now is what nature does naturally, repair itself.

Is this one leg of the Y2Y movement or another whole new ball game?

[Pudelpointer]

I sat in on the development of the park proposal representing the LFGA. All in all I felt the proposal was fairly well balanced and we went out of our way to ensure that current use was taken into consideration.

Make no mistake, there were (are) elements at the table who would like to see all ATV/off road use banned, but the proposal does not say that (unless there have been changes since I was last involved).

What makes me shake my head is the people who screamed murder at the proposed park, then are stunned speechless when they find out they are planning on logging the heck out of it. What did you think was going to happen? The wildland park would have allowed managed ATV access, more camping areas, and most importantly - protection from development. But instead we have extensive clearcutting planned for the next few years, more oil and gas, and more commercial development is likely.

I try not to look at it as two wasted years.

[landowner]

This latest push is put on by the Sierra club. Although they are making all sorts of claims to include historic uses, once they get it deemed a park they can start closing the door to everything the Sierra club is against.

[Huevos]

Is clearcutting that bad? I mean sure it looks bad but most of my best hunting spots are in areas that have been clearcut in the past. We try to protect the forest and then it just burns down anyways from a lightning strike or someones carelessness. We saw it at lynx and carbondale. what was the point of saving the trees? Most of castle has already been logged once. Lots burned up in the 40's all those trees you see on the way up to the ski hill grew back the first time, they will grow back again. I just wish we could find a middle ground. I have camped in castle all my life. My great grandpa had a cabin up there when they logged mine props way back. I have hauled out truck loads of garbage left by other users. I do get sick of it, but I don't want them to close it. IMO if they shut down the area for May long weekend we could cut about 40% of damage caused by people. When you mix alcohol with spring fever and combine them with camping and quads, you get a really fun time. You also get a lot of damage, mostly because the ground is saturated and everywhere someone goes is in the mud. Drunken people don't think. It would suck not to go camping may long, but if it would reduce the impact on the land, I would gladly give up a weekend for that. By July long weekend the trails have dried up quite a bit and have become harder so use causes less damage. Sorry for carrying on, I just think we should be able to find somewhere in between so all albertans can be happy, not just those few who think Waterton is the way all areas should be cause they want to pet a deer the one time they decide to leave the city.

[Pudelpointer]

Huevos (and Landowner) I agree with your comments, unfortunately the idiots ripping it up on their quads are going to ruin it for you. Is logging bad? No. Is clearcutting bad? No. But the size of the cut proposed for the South Castle will change the area for a generation - this means nothing to nature, but it does to the thousands of users of the area. It means something to the bull trout and cutthroat trout.

There is a choice to make. A continued degeneration of the natural resources of the area, or protection. A wildland park designation was proposed because it is the least restrictive under the parks legislation. Hunting would still be allowed, so would fishing, so would camping, so would horses, so would quads. What would not be allowed would be using your atv for mud bogs, hill climbing, and general destruction of the areas montane grassland. Vehicle camping would be restricted to specific areas (that is the one that peeves most people off) but you would be free to throw your tent anywhere as long as you were off the road a ways.

Frankly, I do not really care anymore. The users of the area will get what they have asked for: no regulation, therefore no limits on degeneration of the experience they are both seeking, and destroying. I spent two years trying to find a compromise, only to have people shut their eyes and ears and refuse to think.

[bessiedog]

I got into them about how biased their questions were. I was not impressed.

Low and behold.. The local papers down here wrote something about it... And it went like ' 80-90% odpf respondents are strongly against further use...bla bla bla.

We need to fund the local quadsquad down here and help them build a decent system of trails. These guys do dam good work. It's just that there's a crap load of it to be done....

I'll I want is to keep h450 out of there. Dang ex-Pass trail wrecker!!

[Huevos]

PudlePointer, sounds like you have put in a lot of effort to do what you think is best for the place. That is more than most of us will ever do. I'm sorry that it has been so frustrating for you. The pdf file I read said motorized access would be prohibited. I may have just read it wrong. I will continue using the area no matter what restrictions are put on. When they introduced the castle management plan in 1998 lots of us were pretty mad that we couldn't ride anywhere we wanted anymore. 10 years later when we look back at that decision, I get a different perspective. There was forward thinking in that plan. Imagine what it would be like now with the amount of quads that visit each year. The atv use seems like it doubles every couple of years. Hopefully all your efforts will mean something in the long run when we figure this all out.

[silver lab]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

I sat in on the development of the park proposal representing the LFGA. All in all I felt the proposal was fairly well balanced and we went out of our way to ensure that current use was taken into consideration.

Make no mistake, there were (are) elements at the table who would like to see all ATV/off road use banned, but the proposal does not say that (unless there have been changes since I was last involved).

What makes me shake my head is the people who screamed murder at the proposed park, then are stunned speechless when they find out they are planning on logging the heck out of it. What did you think was going to happen? The wildland park would have allowed managed ATV access, more camping areas, and most importantly - protection from development. But instead we have extensive clearcutting planned for the next few years, more oil and gas, and more commercial development is likely.

I try not to look at it as two wasted years.

I hope you wasted two years of your life!!! I've looked at the area that they plan on cutting and its NOT "extensive"! Managed ATV access? There already is. More camping areas? How does that work when you can camp anywhere you want to now! only its free!!! Sounds like your the sales man and Iam not buyin! The local people they asked were Lethbridge residents and they had a good sales pitch for them. I can tell you Pincher Creek through to the pass dont see it the same way!! Keep your wild land park!

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by silver lab

I hope you wasted two years of your life!!! I've looked at the area that they plan on cutting and its NOT "extensive"! Managed ATV access? There already is. More camping areas? How does that work when you can camp anywhere you want to now! only its free!!! Sounds like your the sales man and Iam not buyin! The local people they asked were Lethbridge residents and they had a good sales pitch for them. I can tell you Pincher Creek through to the pass dont see it the same way!! Keep your wild land park!

I guess extensive is a matter of perspectin. Managed - come on! Enforcement is a joke at best (I know some of the guys that do the "managing" and there is not even close to 1/10th of the number of people needed). By more camping areas I mean just that - not places to park your trailer and Mao a mess.

As for people from Lethbridge, 80% of the users of the Castle area
are from Lethbridge. So are you suggesting that people's opinions only count if they live in the Pass? Surely that is not what you are saying.

Sorry you are so angry. Sometimes the world changes (and sometimes it doesn't), there is no need to get upset. Life goes on, and like I said, in the long run the forest and rivers will quickly forget we were ever here. Oh well.

[silver lab]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

I guess extensive is a matter of perspectin. Managed - come on! Enforcement is a joke at best (I know some of the guys that do the "managing" and there is not even close to 1/10th of the number of people needed). By more camping areas I mean just that - not places to park your trailer and Mao a mess.

As for people from Lethbridge, 80% of the users of the Castle area
are from Lethbridge. So are you suggesting that people's opinions only count if they live in the Pass? Surely that is not what you are saying.

Sorry you are so angry. Sometimes the world changes (and sometimes it doesn't), there is no need to get upset. Life goes on, and like I said, in the long run the forest and rivers will quickly forget we were ever here. Oh well.

Your right enforcement is a joke, but it dosent matter how many trails you shut down it still needs to be enforced only on a larger scale. The "phone call I got as with the phone call the Lethbrige people got was all roses....."managed atv acces" Its very clear they want to shut it all down. Iam not saying that Lethbridge opinion dosent count but that they were very miss led!! 90% of the campers are on the side of roads because you cant get off the roadways very far. The only thing I do agree with is more camping areas. I do get angry when I have to pay 20 bucks a night to camp in the forestry. And no random camping?? There was no explenation on what that ment but I fear the worst. I do alot of sheep hunting there does that mean I cant camp in my tent? The lady on the phone couldnt promis anything.
It all boils down to WE as outdoorsmen need to do our part in enforceing and reporting all the law breakers to fish and wildlife and not to spend two years trying to shut other and all users out. Once this park is passed its an open door for alot more crap like no more drilling and maybe no more cattle but Iam willing to bet you drive a truck and eat beef too. All users of the castle need to do there part or we will all lose!!

[landowner]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Huevos (and Landowner) I agree with your comments, unfortunately the idiots ripping it up on their quads are going to ruin it for you. Is logging bad? No. Is clearcutting bad? No. But the size of the cut proposed for the South Castle will change the area for a generation - this means nothing to nature, but it does to the thousands of users of the area. It means something to the bull trout and cutthroat trout.

There is a choice to make. A continued degeneration of the natural resources of the area, or protection. A wildland park designation was proposed because it is the least restrictive under the parks legislation. Hunting would still be allowed, so would fishing, so would camping, so would horses, so would quads. What would not be allowed would be using your atv for mud bogs, hill climbing, and general destruction of the areas montane grassland. Vehicle camping would be restricted to specific areas (that is the one that peeves most people off) but you would be free to throw your tent anywhere as long as you were off the road a ways.

Frankly, I do not really care anymore. The users of the area will get what they have asked for: no regulation, therefore no limits on degeneration of the experience they are both seeking, and destroying. I spent two years trying to find a compromise, only to have people shut their eyes and ears and refuse to think.

Your absolutly right, there needs to be more restrictions in some areas, but those can be achieved without making a park starting at waterton and ending at highway 3. More enforcement is the key. Even if there was a park the area would still be abused without enforcement. At the south end of the bow-crow the frontal canyons are barricaded and locked down to motorized traffic. The area is monitored by Shell and Cattlemen as well. Way Way less damage compared to the Castle / Beaver Mines area. You don't need a park to manage this area. Once it is a park lots of doors get opened that can't be closed.

[Pudelpointer]

Silverlab and Landowner, I hear you loud and clear. And what you are saying is correct; the current rules and regulations SHOULD be enough, but the fact is they are not.

Now, not saying I think that a park is the BEST idea, just the most feasible given today's reality. Yes, there are rules in place to regulate ATV use, however, SRD's budget keeps getting cut, and most of that budget goes to forestry/fire suppression. On any given year there are 2 - yes 2, Back-Country Guardians patrolling from Waterton to Chain Lakes (it may be farther north, I can't remember). And how many ATVs are out on any given day in that same area through the summer? I would guess THOUSANDS.

Now, let's look at Beauvais Lake Park, approximately 1/100th the area mentioned above, yet they have (IIRC) 7 full / part time wardens.

This is the main reason why transferring the area to AB Parks was proposed: resources. I understand there is no trust between hunters / outdoorsmen and AB Parks, and there are valid reasons for that. But unless something changes the Castle will continue to be degraded.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Silverlab and Landowner, I hear you loud and clear. And what you are saying is correct; the current rules and regulations SHOULD be enough, but the fact is they are not.

This is the main reason why transferring the area to AB Parks was proposed: resources. I understand there is no trust between hunters / outdoorsmen and AB Parks, and there are valid reasons for that. But unless something changes the Castle will continue to be degraded.

The provincial opposition is quite adamant on pushing the Park agenda. I am torn on this one. I have spent many days camping in the castle. Hundreds.

I love the random camping, and hate the OHV's riding off the roads.

There is no question that THE BIG WILD ( Y2Y ) and affiliates have their sights set on the Castle. We could lose all consumptive use of this area very quickly if the voics of hunters/trappers/fishers/campers don't speak up very soon.

Pudel, I'm sure you have seen this report. Not very good for the hunters. Can you provide some links to recent meetings, reports on the Castle?

Wolves on a draw? Yup, the report suggest wolves go on draw...

http://www.ccwc.ab.ca/files/BRINGING_IT_BACK.pdf

[walking buffalo]

This is a very disturbing comment by the NRCB NAtural Resources Conservation Board regarding economics and hunting. Remember, this is our Provincial Government speaking!

It is outragous that a Government board is so ignorant about Wildlife/Hunting in Alberta, and to make such recommendations!

I would bold every sentence in this section for emphasis. It's that disgusting!

http://www.ackroydlaw.com/RCSecord/N9201.pdf

8.2 Economic Impacts and Potential Benefits of Alternative Uses of the Area

However, protection of the area is not the end of the matter. A change in viewpoint as to the value of the natural resources and how to maximize that value over the long-term is also needed.

For example, the Board heard evidence on the low annual hunting licence fees for Alberta residents, which varied according to the species of animal but were all stated to be under $50.

The Board also heard that in other countries hunting licences can be several thousands of times more costly than the modest costs in Alberta. The evidence indicates that for non-residents and non-resident aliens the fees for Alberta hunting allocations are set at auctions and are substantially higher than hunting licence fees for Alberta residents.

The Board is concerned that fish and wildlife resources may be undervalued in Alberta, particularly from the standpoint of international demand for high quality angling trips, guided hunting and wildland outfitting for nature enjoyment.

The Board believes that the economic value to Alberta of such activities could be increased by charging users more for the opportunity to enjoy them.

The Board would recommend that Alberta Environmental Protection establish for the Waterton-Castle area a system of auctions with low harvest limits and high minimum bid requirements for hunting and angling licences and allocations for Alberta residents, in addition to those for non-residents and non-resident aliens.

The Board would also recommend that Alberta Environmental Protection consider awarding a higher proportion of hunting licences overall than it does now to local guides and outfitters for serving non-residents and non-resident aliens.

Because of the potential incremental revenue to Alberta it is appropriate that the minimum bid levels for non-residents and non-resident aliens be priced as high as the interprovincial and international markets can reasonably bear. This may already be a policy of Alberta Environmental Protection.

However the Board emphasizes its belief that it is appropriate for all hunters and anglers, including Alberta residents, to pay more for the privilege of harvesting fish and wildlife in the Waterton-Castle area than they now appear to pay.

It may be that increasing fees or allocation costs would lead to increased poaching or illegal harvesting. The Board would consider it appropriate for some portion of the increased revenues to be allocated to enhanced enforcement in the area by the Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Environmental Protection.

The central goal, in the view of the Board, should be to maximize the value of natural resources and limit their consumption so that these resources may be sustained over time.

In the view of the Board this goal may be achieved if the fish and wildlife resources and the wildland nature of the Waterton-Castle area are valued highly enough to properly protect them in the short-term, so that their ecological productivity may be augmented, and if costs of using the resources increase in the long-term to maximize the return to the Alberta economy.

The Board therefore recommends that all hunting, trapping and angling in the Waterton-Castle area be prohibited for several years into the near future until fish and wildlife populations have reached their maximum attainable levels, after which time the licences for hunting and angling should cost substantially more and be very limited in number.

Trapping should not be allowed at all except for small species which are determined by the Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Environmental Protection to be at nuisance levels.

[silver lab]

I think iam gonna be sick!
I cant believe anybody on Alberta outdoorsmen would even think of supporting this!!
Pudel pointer I hope you can sleep at night!!

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by silver lab

I think iam gonna be sick!
I cant believe anybody on Alberta outdoorsmen would even think of supporting this!!
Pudel pointer I hope you can sleep at night!!

WT* does this have to do with me????? I sleep just fine, thank you.

Pull your head out of your hind orifice, this is a government appointed board! During the CITIZEN'S INITIATIVE that I was involved with no one - I repeat NO ONE - said anything even remotely as ignorant as this. I suggest you stop trolling the internet looking for crap to bit*h about and get involved. If you belong to a F&G club in the pass, THEY WERE AT THE SAME TABLE I WAS. They had their input, and IMO they were listened to.

What WB posted I have never seen before, and I am very disturbed by it. The fact that a board associated with government has the gall to make such statements makes me livid. The NRCB has NOTHING to do with the Castle Citizen's Initiative.

Go yell at someone else.

[Pudelpointer]

Walking Buffalo - stop being a sh*t disturber! That report is from 1993!

Jesus man, you got SilverLab all freaked out, and then I got all PO'd. That report is for the original expansion of West Castle Ski Hill.

[landowner]

I knew I'd seen that before. These were recomendations NRCB brought forward as a trade off with a group called Vacation Alberta. Ralph stepped in and sqashed it. He listened to the "silent majority" instead of a board with a hidden agenda.

[Pudelpointer]

Still scary as hell that a government board could make such ignorant recommendations.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Walking Buffalo - stop being a sh*t disturber! That report is from 1993!

Jesus man, you got SilverLab all freaked out, and then I got all PO'd. That report is for the original expansion of West Castle Ski Hill.

I did say in my first post that the NRCB report linked was from the start of this Castle debate. Silverlab, you gotta read this stuff more carefully.

But the quote from the report still pis ses me off almost 20 years later. Has the NRCB learned anything about hunting/trapping/fishing and wildlife management? Like I said, interested parties need to speak up.

[silver lab]

Pudelpointer I apoligize. But I almost fell off my chair when I read that. We ALL need to be on the same team and NOT try to get any areas shut down for anyone!! Ranchers,Fishermen,Hunters,Hikers and all recreation users.

[Pudelpointer]

Thank you Silver Lab, I think WB deserves a wedgy! Ha.

I know it is hard for people to believe, but the citizen's initiative was an open process. Everyone was invited to attend and participate. The quad squad decided they would not. Oh well. If they want to "take their ball and go home" then the game will still be played without them.

Having said that, I voiced my opinion that if the CI did not take into account the large number of ATV/etc. users in the area they could kiss goodbye any chance of having it accepted. In the end compromise was achieved; some areas were recommended as "no motor vehicle areas" while most was left open for access on designated trails (which is what the rules are supposed to be right now). We argued to provide "undeveloped vehicle camping areas" so that those who do not like to stay in a structured campground would have options.

Hunting was to be allowed throughout the park - with the exception of the small provincial parks (the current "recreation areas") where most vehicle camping would be confined to. We even made a request (which we were told was workable) to allow the carrying of firearms within these parks, so that hunters would not have to case/uncase their firearms every time they entered or exited a "park".

We even heard a certain individual from the Sierra Club state clearly that she would like to see all hunting continue - even hunting of grizzlies! - as long as the populations can withstand it. Of course the argument over the number of bears required to allow for such a hunt would likely never be agreed upon, but still, it signified to me that we are not that far apart on the issues. The main goal of all parties at the table was the protection of the natural resources of the area (as it should be).

If someone believes that it is more important that the area provides timber, oil, gas, and minerals, then I can respect their opinion. However, the main resource that the area currently provides - and it definitely generates more money to the province than logging in the area - is recreation. So is it better to provide 12 logging jobs + 25 reforestation jobs for 5 years, or 50 (likely a lot more) recreation related jobs for the 75 years it would take to otherwise regrow that forest?

I am not against logging. I grew up in a logging family. I have put in countless miles of forest road, surveyed my fair share of timber stands, and laid out a lot of falling blocks. I have cut shakes. I have decommissioned old logging roads. I have even killed a tree or two myself! My point is that there are appropriate places to log, and there are inappropriate places. Some say that we need to log it all before there is a fire; why? Fire is a natural (and currently missing) component of the forest ecosystem in AB.

I hope this provides some useful info in this discussion.

[walking buffalo]

Pudel, thanks for the informative post. And are YOU brave enough to give this wedgy?



Is this version of the Charlie Russel - I’tai sah kòp Wildliand and Provincial Park proposal still intact?

I support this plan. See the Summary of Selected Activities in the Alberta Protected Areas chart for details of activities allowed in a Wildland Park.

http://www.ccwc.ab.ca/files/proposedpark_content.pdf


A map of the Castle Special Management Area. It is proposed to be basically all Wildland Park, the few tiny white areas are proposed Provincial Parks.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/MapsFormsP...m_man_area.pdf


This is the results from the Public Survey on the Castle Special Management Area.

http://www.castlespecialplace.ca/Cas...April%2015.pdf

[landowner]

Do not think for a moment that the sierra club will support hunting and historic uses. once it is designated a park the sierra club will dictate how the area will be used.

wb- it is not the charlie russel park , its andy russell park.

[silver lab]

Cant drive to my spot cant quad it ether. Very sad........Anyone have a horse for sale?? At least while we can still hunt there.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by landowner

Do not think for a moment that the sierra club will support hunting and historic uses. once it is designated a park the sierra club will dictate how the area will be used.

wb- it is not the charlie russel park , its andy russell park.

Good catch. Andy Russel is MUCH more appropriate.

I have Charlie in mind these days. Yesterday, I was describing a homestead in southeast Alberta where Charlie spent time, painting and working on some sculpture. The home is still standing strong. A great place to visit. It should be protected within a Wildland Park.

[Pudelpointer]

The Documents WB posted are not connected with the process I was involved in. The survey I am not familiar with - when was it produced WB? The numbers I am familiar with, but not the report format. We did use similar numbers from a survey to guide us.

Please don't think this is what we proposed (the Andy Russel park description). The map of the area is similar, but there was some expansion of Beaver Mines Lake Rec Area.

IIRC The Andy Russel Park proposal was rejected because of a lack of public involvement and groups involved. This was the reason for the citizen's initiative. I will see if I can post a link to the proposal we forwarded. Then at least we can all be talking about the same thing.