To all outdoorsman and Albertans regarding the castle closure

[beltburner]

Is it just me or are all the people really pushing this plan ahead not even from the area? y2y is American and then the guys on here who are all "ban everything except what I like to do", mostly seem to be from Edmonton area.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Don Meredith

I think you might be surprised by the number of people who like to hunt and fish on foot in peace and quiet, especially in high mountain areas. I'm not opposed to all OHV use, just the use that tears up habitat and destroys fish spawning areas, etc. The reason you see fewer hikers in that area is that they've been runoff by the OHV crowd. These parks will bring the hikers back as well as many hunters/anglers, including myself, who got frustrated by what they saw and heard.

The government spent a whole pile of money in this area and have diverted OHV's away from the spawning areas and closed off senative areas. You can still get back up into the high country and away from OHV's to hike and hunt and fish. They built new trails (on existing logging trails) to divert around the spawning areas. The OHV's don't bother me. Most of the game is higher up where OHV's can't get to anyways.

[59whiskers]

Banning OHV use is the beginning of systematically banning different user groups that the so called ecofriendly people do not like. Hunting is in their sights a the next target for those of you that think we will not be affected. We are quickly losing our freedom to access our Rocky Mountain public land areas of this province. The so called Eco,s and business interests are taking this land away from all Albertans for their own enjoyment and profit.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Don_Parsons

Many of us have been following this Castle Mountain Area Park plan when it started off as the SSRB "South Saskatchewan River Basin".

The plan from day 1 was too have "ALL" user groups that use this area provide input by having meetings with their user groups over a time frame allotted by the original draft plan set in place when this park idea was getting under way...

Many groups like the "Quad Squad was still in consultation when Rachael Notley and Shannon Phillips announced that this Castle Area will not include OHV'S even though Shannon said they would. Two user groups in writing too gain their support,,, then they turned a blind eye on them in the surprise announcement on top of that.

So the word trust has come up that hunting and fishing is allowed at this point in time, but does this mean that it will remain this way forever, or is there a plan later on too change this with out consultation from other users groups as they "were" attempting this with the ohv groups.

Don't know as none of us have been asked at this point in time.
The head of Alberta Fish and Game Association was at the Calgary rally. He sure didn't sound please with this OHV ban and the long term plan on what could happen to the 400 zone.

Is this a smoke and screen thing too eliminate one user group, then the next as it becomes a no Harvesting zone in years too come, or will it remain open for ever,,, hummmmm.

Next question is the folks with health issues that uses this area by any means possible, ohvs, horses, and Snowmobiles as some folks have worn out backs and knees, other have MS, and many other diseases they we're born with or inherited over time that limit their movements in travel.

Guess some folks talk about hiking and walking as this is not an option for all humans. I guess these folks input dosen't matter as this park and wild land is "only" for those that can travel it by foot.
Strange too think of it this way I guess.

I agree that there are 2 sides too this park and wild land thing, but it would be nice if "all" user groups "could" use the area. Enforcement with education, and improvements on the well built trail net-work that is all ready in place down there.

I'm very lucky as I've ohv'ed, mountain biked, hiked, snowmobiled, and camped on and off down there for many years.

A little fishing with catch and always release, sight seeing, and lots of relaxing at nill for cost on plain old crown lands there and across all the Americas.

Times are a changing, but it sure would be nice too allow our older generation too have some of this free as well as our next generation.

The out doors kinda cost us in travel with the unit we take gas and food along with wife and kids.
The odd peddle bikes, OHV, or Snowmobiles depending on the season.

I for one along with many a folks on this forum like crown lands as the masses of us respect them.

That's my take as I share in what "could or not could" in years forward.

Just gearing up for the 9th weekend out for 2017 on Crown lands as I have 43 more too go before years end.

PS: Let it be known that out-door lives matter. Ha

From Don

Great post Don.

Unfortunately, you will never convince people like Don Meredith that your opinion and your experiences are valid. Their vision of the "right way" does not involve other user groups or other opinions, only their own, and they will go to just about any lengths to make sure that they force their vision of what our public lands should be onto everyone.

[Albertadiver]

Revision of the Draft Management Plan for Castle Provincial Park and Castle Wildland Provincial Park and Public Information Sessions

Alberta Environment and Parks will be releasing a revised version of the Draft Management Plan for Castle Provincial Park and Castle Wildland Provincial Park. The revised plan will be available online Friday, March 10. The consultation period has now been extended for an additional 30-days until April 19th, 2017.

A series of Public Information Sessions and stakeholder meetings are now scheduled, which will provide Albertans the opportunity to share ideas for how to manage Castle Provincial Park and Castle Wildland Provincial Park and surrounding public lands into the future.

Public Information Session dates and times are as follows:

March 10, 2017, 4:30pm -7:30 pm – Pincher Creek Community Centre (287 Canyon Drive)
March 11, 2017, 2:00pm - 5:00pm – MD of Ranchlands Office in Chain Lakes Provincial Park

These are ‘come-and-go’ sessions, with information provided in poster board format.

Alberta Parks encourages and values your input. Instructions for providing written or online comments and further information on the public information sessions are available at: www.albertaparks.ca/consult.

Thank you for your support and interest in Alberta Parks.
Alberta Environment and Parks
Parks Division
2nd floor Oxbridge Place
9820 - 106 Street NW
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6



If you want to receive notifications like this, check out this thread:


http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?p=3489956

[Don Meredith]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

Great post Don.

Unfortunately, you will never convince people like Don Meredith that your opinion and your experiences are valid. Their vision of the "right way" does not involve other user groups or other opinions, only their own, and they will go to just about any lengths to make sure that they force their vision of what our public lands should be onto everyone.

It's always interesting to me how people can claim they know me and how I might think about issues. If you've read my columns you might have some idea but you obviously don't know me. I've been in the conservation business for over 50 years, working with governments, non-profits and universities. I've informed, negotiated and come to compromises with all manner of people and interests. Some of those compromises I didn't like but I accepted them as the best deal possible at the time.

I happen to think Don Parsons made a very good statement about his views and I do indeed understand where he is coming from. This is not the first conversation I've had with OHV users over this and other issues. (And yes, I've driven OHVs at work and to haul out game.) I hope Don has or will submit his views to AEP so they are considered. After all, it is indeed a draft management plan and as evidenced by the recent announcement, changes are being and will be made. For example, it looks like provisions may be made to allow hunters to retrieve game using OHVs. If that can be accommodated, I can live with it.

My issue with the Castle parks, as well as many other areas, is the loss of critical fish and wildlife habitat, particularly in headwater regions. There are more and more people coming to the mountains to enjoy wild areas, most do not hunt or fish. Like it or not, we're going to have to regulate how the land is used if we want to keep what wildland we have. What we are deciding now is how wild we want that land to be.

Don

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Don Meredith

It's always interesting to me how people can claim they know me and how I might think about issues. If you've read my columns you might have some idea but you obviously don't know me. I've been in the conservation business for over 50 years, working with governments, non-profits and universities. I've informed, negotiated and come to compromises with all manner of people and interests. Some of those compromises I didn't like but I accepted them as the best deal possible at the time.

I happen to think Don Parsons made a very good statement about his views and I do indeed understand where he is coming from. This is not the first conversation I've had with OHV users over this and other issues. (And yes, I've driven OHVs at work and to haul out game.) I hope Don has or will submit his views to AEP so they are considered. After all, it is indeed a draft management plan and as evidenced by the recent announcement, changes are being and will be made. For example, it looks like provisions may be made to allow hunters to retrieve game using OHVs. If that can be accommodated, I can live with it.

My issue with the Castle parks, as well as many other areas, is the loss of critical fish and wildlife habitat, particularly in headwater regions. There are more and more people coming to the mountains to enjoy wild areas, most do not hunt or fish. Like it or not, we're going to have to regulate how the land is used if we want to keep what wildland we have. What we are deciding now is how wild we want that land to be.

Don

I would refer you to your post #77 in this thread. It's very telling...

[Great White Albino Moose]

Why don't we as outdoorsman and women hold a protest. We could all be in vehicles towing quads or in the box of the trucks. And signage made up about our quading area being taken away. Then some of us hunter people should also carry signage about that in or on our vehicles.
But this has to be done as peaceful as possible. And as quiet as possible. I've seen one of those peaceful protestes and it was quite scary. There was no shouting or yelling. Everyone was deathly quiet. In my opinion it got the point across.
Now think of this from the public side of things. We are protesting quietly and all of us own firearms.
Hmmmm.
Just my 2cents. Thanks for reading.

[1cuz1]

Originally Posted by Great White Albino Moose

Why don't we as outdoorsman and women hold a protest. We could all be in vehicles towing quads or in the box of the trucks. And signage made up about our quading area being taken away. Then some of us hunter people should also carry signage about that in or on our vehicles.
But this has to be done as peaceful as possible. And as quiet as possible. I've seen one of those peaceful protestes and it was quite scary. There was no shouting or yelling. Everyone was deathly quiet. In my opinion it got the point across.
Now think of this from the public side of things. We are protesting quietly and all of us own firearms.
Hmmmm.
Just my 2cents. Thanks for reading.

there have been already and will be more to come, I believe this saturday in Blairmore there is an organised rally involving riding quads followed by everyone heading to Chain Lakes for the 1st consultation meeting

[1cuz1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...76&oe=596449EB

rally march 11 info

[Don_Parsons]

Save our access to Crown Lands rally coming to Edmonton Alberta.

Those interested are more than welcome too attend.

March 25th at the Edmonton legislative grounds at 12 to 2 pm.

Hope we get just as good of speakers as there was in Calgary.

Please share with Hunters, fishing folks, Snowmobilers, hikers, OHV, and camper folks too. Motorcycle and sight-seers as well.

All user groups are welcome as we show our support too have access too our crown lands from Coalman too the top of our province.

See all that can attend as its the best we can do in changing times.

Don

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by Don Meredith

That's only for the Provincial Park. Hunting will be allowed in the larger Wildland Park as it is outside the park, following the regulations laid down for WMU 400. The exception is no OHVs. This will provide better hunting opportunities both inside and outside the Wildland Park.

Don, have you been able to confirm that this is the case. My discussions with AEP staff have indicated that species which will be allowed for harvest have not been determined for the wild land Park and will be set by Parks following consultation.

[sjd]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

Don, have you been able to confirm that this is the case. My discussions with AEP staff have indicated that species which will be allowed for harvest have not been determined for the wild land Park and will be set by Parks following consultation.

Every Wildland Park in the province allows hunting and if never had an issue in any of them I've hunted. The throne speech last week mentioned hunting in a positive sense for possibly the first time ever. The government last week announced ATVs would be allowed for game recovery.

It's no wonder that a backcountry hunters of Alberta group is forming for those outdoorsmen that support this decision. Still think the park designation is a big win for conservation and hunting/fishing. The snow and mud site is next door.

[MathewsArcher]

The legislation allows for hunting but does not specify what can be hunted. It seems like AEP will acknowledge elk hunting will continue but no one will confirm if whitetails, mule deer, moose, bears, cats or even game bird hunting will continue. It sounds like AEP Parks Division will have the final say. First time we've had an ND government when a Wildland Park is being established so I am sure everything is on the table. I suggest the questions need to be asked directly because so far there has been a lack of detail and a reluctance to confirm specifics.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Don Meredith

It's always interesting to me how people can claim they know me and how I might think about issues. If you've read my columns you might have some idea but you obviously don't know me. I've been in the conservation business for over 50 years, working with governments, non-profits and universities. I've informed, negotiated and come to compromises with all manner of people and interests. Some of those compromises I didn't like but I accepted them as the best deal possible at the time.

I happen to think Don Parsons made a very good statement about his views and I do indeed understand where he is coming from. This is not the first conversation I've had with OHV users over this and other issues. (And yes, I've driven OHVs at work and to haul out game.) I hope Don has or will submit his views to AEP so they are considered. After all, it is indeed a draft management plan and as evidenced by the recent announcement, changes are being and will be made. For example, it looks like provisions may be made to allow hunters to retrieve game using OHVs. If that can be accommodated, I can live with it.

My issue with the Castle parks, as well as many other areas, is the loss of critical fish and wildlife habitat, particularly in headwater regions. There are more and more people coming to the mountains to enjoy wild areas, most do not hunt or fish. Like it or not, we're going to have to regulate how the land is used if we want to keep what wildland we have. What we are deciding now is how wild we want that land to be.

Don

Nobody is questioning your knowledge or experience.

There are some unanswered questions that could profoundly affect a lot of outdoorsmen, including all user groups.

While the loss of fish habitat may be an issue, the loss of wildlife habitat seems to be a bit of a stretch, as a lot of game is harvested from the area every year, and even with the increase in OHV use, many people still see game while riding. It comes down to a question I asked earlier, what percentage of the landscape is covered by trails and staging areas. Realistically, we are talking maybe 1 or 2%. That leaves 98% of the area for wildlife habitat. That is fairly significant, certainly not what we should be calling habitat loss.

An OHV ban is simply not necessary, it does not take a PHD to see that. If there is a problem, we need more enforcement. Traffic laws are a great example. Just because there are a large number of "educated" people in agreeance with the ban, it does not make it right, or necessary. We know that the vast majority of these people are biased, and comprise of non-OHV users.

I hear and read a lot of "I've been there, I've seen the damage". What a farcical statement. What can be considered damage? Is a mud pit damage? Is a trail damage? We know that different species use both of these types of "damage" to go about their daily life.

From my perspective, most people who support the ban are self-serving opportunists who were unwilling to share the area with their fellow citizens.

[59whiskers]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Nobody is questioning your knowledge or experience.

There are some unanswered questions that could profoundly affect a lot of outdoorsmen, including all user groups.

While the loss of fish habitat may be an issue, the loss of wildlife habitat seems to be a bit of a stretch, as a lot of game is harvested from the area every year, and even with the increase in OHV use, many people still see game while riding. It comes down to a question I asked earlier, what percentage of the landscape is covered by trails and staging areas. Realistically, we are talking maybe 1 or 2%. That leaves 98% of the area for wildlife habitat. That is fairly significant, certainly not what we should be calling habitat loss.

An OHV ban is simply not necessary, it does not take a PHD to see that. If there is a problem, we need more enforcement. Traffic laws are a great example. Just because there are a large number of "educated" people in agreeance with the ban, it does not make it right, or necessary. We know that the vast majority of these people are biased, and comprise of non-OHV users.

I hear and read a lot of "I've been there, I've seen the damage". What a farcical statement. What can be considered damage? Is a mud pit damage? Is a trail damage? We know that different species use both of these types of "damage" to go about their daily life.

From my perspective, most people who support the ban are self-serving opportunists who were unwilling to share the area with their fellow citizens.

This forestry zone south of highway 3 had a driveable roads or trails up to the continental divide over 40 years ago, such as South Castle, West Castle, Gardiner, Carbondale,,etc. that you could access with a 2 wheel drive vehicle. There was a drivable road up every valley back then. For the environmentalists to say the whole place is overrun with OHV,s is a out right lie. The problems have occurred where everyone is piled up on top of each other in the areas that are currently open but have had some reclamation done in the last 2 years. Damage could be much less than 1%. Most of the younger folks were not born back then to see what it was really like.

[two_ker]

http://www.producer.com/2017/03/alta...n-castle-park/

So grazing under permits will still be allowed, which I dont see as a big problem. But the statement about "some hunting will be allowed to control animals" is pretty vague.

[Walleyedude]

The grand vision of the Castle being a wilderness area where tourists flock to experience the "Alberta Outdoors" is what scares the hell out of me.

Another Banff or Canmore, run by bureaucrats and private interest, for profit, cramming as many "eco" tourists into the place as possible. Public and private designated RV campgrounds, condo complexes, rental cabins, gift shops, parking lots for staging areas, gift shops, guides and tours, people all over the place...

That vision is completely incompatible with the current use of the Castle as an area to hunt, fish, OHV, and get away from the crowds of tourists and urbanites. They want quiet for their hiking, they don't want the animals they paid to see getting shot, and they don't want to be smelling cows or stepping in cow poop on their wilderness hikes.

The lure of short term promises for some groups is strong, I get that, but outdoorsmen and ranchers, anyone that lives and recreates in the Castle, should be VERY concerned about where this is going...

[sjd]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

The grand vision of the Castle being a wilderness area where tourists flock to experience the "Alberta Outdoors" is what scares the hell out of me.

Another Banff or Canmore, run by bureaucrats and private interest, for profit, cramming as many "eco" tourists into the place as possible. Public and private designated RV campgrounds, condo complexes, rental cabins, gift shops, parking lots for staging areas, gift shops, guides and tours, people all over the place...

That vision is completely incompatible with the current use of the Castle as an area to hunt, fish, OHV, and get away from the crowds of tourists and urbanites. They want quiet for their hiking, they don't want the animals they paid to see getting shot, and they don't want to be smelling cows or stepping in cow poop on their wilderness hikes.

The lure of short term promises for some groups is strong, I get that, but outdoorsmen and ranchers, anyone that lives and recreates in the Castle, should be VERY concerned about where this is going...

I'd share your concerns but its not accurate. The Wildland Park designation which is the much bigger of the two castle parks does not allow any of those commercial uses that you list. It is going to get much wilder.

Provincial parks do tend to have more infrastructure, true, but I think you exaggerate - there are no provincial parks in Alberta with condo complexes or gift shops. Canmore and Banff were existing towns. Also I thought the concerns were that the greenies were trying to lock people out, now its that there will be too many people. It can't be both!

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by sjd

I'd share your concerns but its not accurate. The Wildland Park designation which is the much bigger of the two castle parks does not allow any of those commercial uses that you list. It is going to get much wilder.

Provincial parks do tend to have more infrastructure, true, but I think you exaggerate - there are no provincial parks in Alberta with condo complexes or gift shops. Canmore and Banff were existing towns. Also I thought the concerns were that the greenies were trying to lock people out, now its that there will be too many people. It can't be both!

It's the land around the edges of the park I'd be more concerned about, not the wildland park itself. And again, park designations can be changed with the unilateral stroke of a pen behind closed doors at any time. I take ZERO comfort in its current designation.

What's Kananaskis then? Beaver Flats is an existing town. There's a ski hill and lodge in place already in the Castle. The entire Crowsnest Pass area is minutes away. I fail to see the difference. Have you seen some of the development proposals and things floating around out there? Have you looked at what private land is available adjacent to the park and who's buying it? Do some digging, it's scary...

It most definitely can be both. It's not all about locking people out, it's about dictating which activities are acceptable and which aren't. The number of people is a HUGE factor, not only for the existing residents and users of the area, but for wildlife populations as well.

[elk09]

Hi, I'm a hunter and fisherman and own an ATV and have grew up down in SW Alberta.

Started hunting elk in wmu 400 and 402 in the 80s and loved it, especially the times I got to call in elk and hear them bugle back.

ATV's ruined several of my hunting spots because all of a sudden everyone and their dog could drive in instead of having to walk in. All I know for sure is there needs to be limits on ATV use and the present system does not seem to be working. I personally would like to see ATV use limited to recovering game only.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

Revision of the Draft Management Plan for Castle Provincial Park and Castle Wildland Provincial Park and Public Information Sessions

www.albertaparks.ca/consult.

I sure hope those interested in effecting the Parks Plan will read the updated draft. A link to the Castle https://talkaep.alberta.ca/CastleManagementPlan page where drafts and changes can be downloaded.

Below are the updated plans for Hunting.


Addendum to Castle Management Plan | March 2017 | 11
6.7 Hunting
Why the change?

Feedback was received indicating that the difficulty of retrieving game over long distances was not recognized.

Proposed Revisions
One paragraph was added to the narrative.
“Off-highway vehicle use, such as quads, may be permitted for the retrieval of game on a network of access trails specifically designated for those purposes.”
The second objective and its strategies were reworded, and one new objective and strategy were added.

6.7
Objectives
-Collaborate with fish and wildlife associated groups to determine best practices and develop guidelines to allow for limited use of Off Highway Vehicles for the purposes of game retrieval.

Strategy
+Review best practices and develop guidelines for the responsible use of OHVs for the purposes of retrieving game. Guidelines for Park staff and users will address various management issues including the potential of permitting mechanisms, hours and seasonal limitations, code of conduct for users, etc.

--------
Objectives
-In Castle Provincial Park, Alberta Parks will work collaboratively with Alberta Fish and Wildlife to manage hunting.

-Within a short timeframe, after the establishment of the provincial park, the main aim will be to communicate to hunters the parks regulations specific to hunting activities.

-In medium term implementation will involve collaboration with Alberta Fish and Wildlife to explore ways in which Castle Provincial Park can have its hunting managed as a discreet geographical unit. This may include options to manage hunting allocations, seasons and licence types to align with the overall management of Castle Provincial Park. Consideration may be given to the development of a separate Wildlife Management Unit that could facilitate the governance of unit-specific regulations.


Strategy
+Communicate regulatory requirements around discharge buffers, game processing and carcass storage, and the requirement for hunters to obtain a parks discharge permit.

+Review all available hunter harvest and activity data that is available to inform managers of the trends in hunter use of WMU 400.

+For public safety reasons, prohibit hunting in facility zones and within 183 metre buffer zones surrounding designated camping areas, designated day-use areas and roads. Hunting may also be prohibited by Alberta Parks in specific areas of the park where hunting is not compatible with other recreational activities.

+Work towards management actions within Castle Provincial Park that permit recreational hunting for the purposes of managing wildlife populations, minimizing impacts on adjacent lands and maintaining quality visitor experiences across the full spectrum of recreation activities.

+Through all stages, Alberta Parks will collaborate with Alberta Fish and Wildlife on existing hunter harvest and activity data collection to inform park management.

[KBF]

Just as a question and I may have missed it somewhere. It says atvs will still be allowed for the retrieval use of game harvest.

Is this meaning that when the proposed 3-5 years before OHV use is over and OHV have been removed from area, that OHV can only be used to remove game?

Im just wondering why the change was significant since OHV are still allowed. I must be missing something.

[ram crazy]

So in the strategies section point #3 that could mean that there will be no hunting allowed in the entire provincial park area, Right????

[Yaha Tinda]

We're in this together.......slippery slope consent. It is a misguided nature preservationist agenda. blah blah blah

No, were not in this together.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

So in the strategies section point #3 that could mean that there will be no hunting allowed in the entire provincial park area, Right????

That is my understanding as well. It does not clearly define what hunting activities will be allowed, for a reason.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Strategy
+Communicate regulatory requirements around discharge buffers, game processing and carcass storage, and the requirement for hunters to obtain a parks discharge permit.

+Review all available hunter harvest and activity data that is available to inform managers of the trends in hunter use of WMU 400.

+For public safety reasons, prohibit hunting in facility zones and within 183 metre buffer zones surrounding designated camping areas, designated day-use areas and roads. Hunting may also be prohibited by Alberta Parks in specific areas of the park where hunting is not compatible with other recreational activities.

+Work towards management actions within Castle Provincial Park that permit recreational hunting for the purposes of managing wildlife populations, minimizing impacts on adjacent lands and maintaining quality visitor experiences across the full spectrum of recreation activities.

+Through all stages, Alberta Parks will collaborate with Alberta Fish and Wildlife on existing hunter harvest and activity data collection to inform park management.

If this section doesn't scare you as a hunter, I don't know what will, because it really should...

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

If this section doesn't scare you as a hunter, I don't know what will, because it really should...

They are too blinded with excitement over the OHV ban to understand this.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Newview01

They are too blinded with excitement over the OHV ban to understand this.

Just a lot of simple people in the world nowadays!!

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by beltburner

Is it just me or are all the people really pushing this plan ahead not even from the area? y2y is American and then the guys on here who are all "ban everything except what I like to do", mostly seem to be from Edmonton area.

Always find it ironic, the Canadians pushing the y2y thing live in Canmore, about as big an abomination as there is when it comes to wildlife corridors.

Grizz