Bighorn Public land to Parks land proposal

[CF8889]

Castle: Large WPP, with a pretty big PP: "OH MY GOD!! They shut it down! No one can or will enjoy this place thanks to the NDP/Y2Y!"

Porkies: PLUZ with a main road, OHV trails, designated places to park your trailer for free... the ability to hunt without ever been more then a few km's from your truck/quad: " OH MY GOD!! They shut it down! No one can or will enjoy this place thanks to the NDP/Y2Y!"

Bighorn:....no matter what they do: "OH MY GOD!! They shut it down! No one can or will enjoy this place thanks to the NDP/Y2Y!"


The reality is.... there is a small group of VERY vocal people pushing crazy over the top conspiracy theory non sense. Unknowingly making a total joke of the situation. Meanwhile people's opinions like WB's get buried in the non sense. I don't think the few vocal people realize they are helping Shannon more then they are hurting her....

[RZR]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

What an articulate and well reasoned post.

I hate to judge a book by its cover, but perhaps with a handle like RZR I know where you place hunting on the hierarchy of camping, OHV use, hiking, horseback riding angling and hunting? .

You haven’t a clue about me. I love camping with my kids in the summer and this allows me to spend some quality time with my kids and they love fishing in the summer then fall rolls around and they love to hunt. Oh and yea I own a machine, but it gets used to get me and my kids way back into country that there isn’t very much fishing or hunting pressure and this right here is awesome because they don’t spend a pile of time on their video games. They get to see some great country and see lots of animals. So don’t judge a book by its cover, that is why I hate when the government tries to stuff crap down ones throat, and if you really want to go for a hike where there is no ohv’s go to kananaskis or the willmore. We don’t need more parks.

[bitterrootfly]

Originally Posted by RZR

You haven’t a clue about me. I love camping with my kids in the summer and this allows me to spend some quality time with my kids and they love fishing in the summer then fall rolls around and they love to hunt. Oh and yea I own a machine, but it gets used to get me and my kids way back into country that there isn’t very much fishing or hunting pressure and this right here is awesome because they don’t spend a pile of time on their video games. They get to see some great country and see lots of animals. So don’t judge a book by its cover, that is why I hate when the government tries to stuff crap down ones throat, and if you really want to go for a hike where there is no ohv’s go to kananaskis or the willmore. We don’t need more parks.

You never need to justify yourself to anyone else, keep enjoying time with your kids, lords knows more of them could spend their time outside instead of on thier xbox. Peace brother keep enjoying the outdoors.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Do you know the history of hunting in this area before and after/during Kananaskis and all the connected parks were created?

If you do, you should acknowledge that hunting has been severely restricted since these parks were made. To say that "Kananaskis has allowed hunting since it was created", while correct, ignores the fact that since its creation, hunting has been severely and continuously restricted.


Now the comment on hunters being "vehemently opposed to any steps taken to conserve the Bighorn" really highlights your bias (unintended or not). That is a garbage comment that you know is false, grow up.

Back to the Castle, beyond access changes, hunting season length and harvest allocations have yet to be tackled by Parks. But this will happen and then people will see that Parks and their supporters, ignorant or not, promoted eliminating hunting opportunity for the sake of their precious park.

Anyone that can understand government speak will see the writing was on the wall. Supporting these parks, including Wildland Parks, is supporting further restricting and eliminating hunting.

My point was that Kananaskis has been around for 40 years and that hunting is still permitted. Are there more restrictions than before the parks existed? Yes, but to suggest that the creation of Kananaskis was synonyms with the elimination of hunting is simply not true. You obviously know that, and were being hyperbolic to make your point. I can concede that Parks do come with the potential for hunting restrictions and the possibility of elimination (although I would argue elimination has not been a serious issue to this point), but I do not accept that the creation of wildland parks seals our fate as hunters either. The Wildland experience in Alberta does not bare this out.

As far as your selective quotation of my comment regarding hunters and conservation, I don't have much to say. The point was really not that hunters are against conservation, but that the world has evolved and hunters are more under scrutiny than ever before. I only suggested that we should consider the perception created within the non-hunting public when hunters stand-up against conservation initiatives that by all accounts secure habitat and wildlife as a consequence. It is hard to say publicly we are for the animals and the areas in which they live when we push against initiatives that (IF DONE CORRECTLY) can preserve our lifestyle and provide greater protection for habitat.

The key is that we engage the proposal (rather than conspiracy theories), while at the same time evaluating it against what the government has already done in the Castle. I am not advocating that we take the government at its word, I only suggest that we don't rely on transparently deceptive or one sided rhetoric being spread by a vocal minority that appears to have other interests in mind than hunting and fishing.

These issues are nuanced and serious discussion is warranted within our ranks. I truly value input like yours because it comes across as well thought out and considered. I may not agree with you entirely, but your contributions are certainly more productive than others who traffic in insults, straw man arguments, and misinformation. We are all on the same team regardless of whether we agree on every individual issue....Bighorn included.

My concern continues to be the lack of clarity from the NDP, particularly with what has gone on in the Castle Wildland (huts, trail closures etc.).

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by RZR

You haven’t a clue about me. I love camping with my kids in the summer and this allows me to spend some quality time with my kids and they love fishing in the summer then fall rolls around and they love to hunt. Oh and yea I own a machine, but it gets used to get me and my kids way back into country that there isn’t very much fishing or hunting pressure and this right here is awesome because they don’t spend a pile of time on their video games. They get to see some great country and see lots of animals. So don’t judge a book by its cover, that is why I hate when the government tries to stuff crap down ones throat, and if you really want to go for a hike where there is no ohv’s go to kananaskis or the willmore. We don’t need more parks.

I spend significant time (more than my wife would like) thinking about hunting fishing and the issues around them. I am no hypocrite, and I based the idea that you are an advocate for random RV camping and OHV use (which you appear to be) off a hell of a lot more than you based your assessment of me.

I was not suggesting that you do not fish or hunt or love your children. I assume everyone on the forum likes to hunt or fish and probably most of us love our kids, wives, dogs, and family. I was eluding to the fact that if push comes to shove you value camping in an RV and quading more than the conservation of habitats and wilderness that support the species we like to hunt and fish. Maybe I am wrong. I do not begrudge you for enjoying the RV and OHV's with your kids (as stated I support multiple use), but I do support setting aside areas where those activities are restricted and a more rustic wilderness experience is available. You appear to disagree, and that is fine. We can both love the outdoors and sit on opposite sides of the fence on a particular issue.

The Bighorn is a large tract of land and the PLUZ is even larger. I would love to see room for you to take your kids on designated trails in specific areas while I can take mine into an area designated for a more authentic wilderness experience. Based case scenario, when my knees and back give out my kid will be doing the same things with their kids. That is the essence of the multiple use framework.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I spend significant time (more than my wife would like) thinking about hunting fishing and the issues around them. I am no hypocrite, and I based the idea that you are an advocate for random RV camping and OHV use (which you appear to be) off a hell of a lot more than you based your assessment of me.

I was not suggesting that you do not fish or hunt or love your children. I assume everyone on the forum likes to hunt or fish and probably most of us love our kids, wives, dogs, and family. I was eluding to the fact that if push comes to shove you value camping in an RV and quading more than the conservation of habitats and wilderness that support the species we like to hunt and fish. Maybe I am wrong. I do not begrudge you for enjoying the RV and OHV's with your kids (as stated I support multiple use), but I do support setting aside areas where those activities are restricted and a more rustic wilderness experience is available. You appear to disagree, and that is fine. We can both love the outdoors and sit on opposite sides of the fence on a particular issue.

The Bighorn is a large tract of land and the PLUZ is even larger. I would love to see room for you to take your kids on designated trails in specific areas while I can take mine into an area designated for a more authentic wilderness experience. Based case scenario, when my knees and back give out my kid will be doing the same things with their kids. That is the essence of the multiple use framework.

Are there not enough of these dedicated areas you have indicated you require in Alberta yet? I'd love to go over a map with you and point them all out. You may be quite surprised how many there already are.

[243plus]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Are there not enough of these dedicated areas you have indicated you require in Alberta yet? I'd love to go over a map with you and point them all out. You may be quite surprised how many there already are.

What I see, and generally support, on the Bighorn plan, is that there will be a curtailment of areas that are impacted by mechanical conveyances and equipment. Curtailment, not elimination, and curtailment includes avoiding sensitive habitat, whether that is riparian areas or upland.

What I would like to see is a better definition of where that curtailment will occur. Now, part of the planning process is to roughly outline the areas that will have various activities involved, with the details being hashed out later. That is normal, from what I understand.

I also get that many, many are upset and have no trust because of the back pedaling in the Castle. Maybe if someone could suggest what a better process is, and still achieve an outcome that means less impact on the habitat we all want to enjoy one way or the other. Please don't just say "enforcement", because there is not just one magic bullet, but a multiple pronged strategy that needs to occur.

I see that Walking Buffalo and Oiler_nation have both made some good points. That's the way a discussion should occur.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Are there not enough of these dedicated areas you have indicated you require in Alberta yet? I'd love to go over a map with you and point them all out. You may be quite surprised how many there already are.

I just think that it is important to find balance.

I grew up hunting the lower Blackstone area. It used to be that Weyerhaeuser locked the gate and guys had to quad for miles to get away from the crowd. Every year we had to go further and further to carve out our own little piece of ground. Then they stopped locking the gate and things got really crazy. Suddenly, you could drive you truck to where guys on quads used to end their journeys. It made guys even more brazen (us included) and changed the nature of the country, how we hunted it, and how it felt to hunt it. We still had our share of success, but the experience had been diluted.

As I have matured I have come to realize that ATV's have a way of making country more accessible while making wilderness less accessible.

How much wilderness is enough? I don't know, but I do know that I have seen enough activity in our backyard to make me think that additional protections are not necessarily a bad idea. Apparently you do not share my concerns.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I just think that it is important to find balance.

I grew up hunting the lower Blackstone area. It used to be that Weyerhaeuser locked the gate and guys had to quad for miles to get away from the crowd. Every year we had to go further and further to carve out our own little piece of ground. Then they stopped locking the gate and things got really crazy. Suddenly, you could drive you truck to where guys on quads used to end their journeys. It made guys even more brazen (us included) and changed the nature of the country, how we hunted it, and how it felt to hunt it. We still had our share of success, but the experience had been diluted.

As I have matured I have come to realize that ATV's have a way of making country more accessible while making wilderness less accessible.

How much wilderness is enough? I don't know, but I do know that I have seen enough activity in our backyard to make me think that additional protections are not necessarily a bad idea. Apparently you do not share my concerns.

So you want wilderness with motorized vehicle restrictions? Not being a dick, but do you have a clue how much area is already restricted to motorized vehicle use in Alberta??

[oiler_nation]

[QUOTE=243plus;3909525]What I see, and generally support, on the Bighorn plan, is that there will be a curtailment of areas that are impacted by mechanical conveyances and equipment. Curtailment, not elimination, and curtailment includes avoiding sensitive habitat, whether that is riparian areas or upland.

What I would like to see is a better definition of where that curtailment will occur. Now, part of the planning process is to roughly outline the areas that will have various activities involved, with the details being hashed out later. That is normal, from what I understand.

I also get that many, many are upset and have no trust because of the back pedaling in the Castle. Maybe if someone could suggest what a better process is, and still achieve an outcome that means less impact on the habitat we all want to enjoy one way or the other. Please don't just say "enforcement", because there is not just one magic bullet, but a multiple pronged strategy that needs to occur./QUOTE]

I share your many of the same sentiments.

It may be standard protocol to speak in high level terms at this stage of the process, but the reality is that with the Castle Wildland and wheel chair accessible huts fresh in my mind it is difficult to fully buy in without knowing what IT is. The info session I attended was a joke, the survey is one sided (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree), and I think the end product would be better served if government officials (not summer students or individuals from random departments, but Shannon Phillips and others with actual clout) sat down and had real town halls in various communities. Obviously these town halls would have to be tightly monitored to ensure respectful engagement, but at least then some of the more reasoned arguments would be heard directly by the decision makers. This would not completely undue the mistrust created in the castle (and rural Alberta is always going to have some mistrust of the NDP), but at least it would show an actual attempt to really engage with various stakeholders.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by 243plus

What I see, and generally support, on the Bighorn plan, is that there will be a curtailment of areas that are impacted by mechanical conveyances and equipment. Curtailment, not elimination, and curtailment includes avoiding sensitive habitat, whether that is riparian areas or upland.

What I would like to see is a better definition of where that curtailment will occur. Now, part of the planning process is to roughly outline the areas that will have various activities involved, with the details being hashed out later. That is normal, from what I understand.

.

You do realize this can be accomplished without wildland and provincial parks don't you? I think part of the problem is many don't.
Do yourself a favor and go pick up a couple maps. Start with the Ghost Forest Land Use Zone. Next pick up a map of the Bighorn Backcountry. You will notice that a large amount of area is already shut down to motorized vehicles, and also many areas with designated trail systems. Might be an eye opener going thru those maps.
Designated trail systems are a fantastic idea. Areas such as the hummingbird the trails are actually maintained by user groups with money donated by industry.
If there are problems, ENFORCEMENT is a novel idea.
We do not require any more parks to accomplish this balance
Privileges will continue to be taken away. It's a government thing...

[bitterrootfly]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

I spend significant time (more than my wife would like) thinking about hunting fishing and the issues around them. I am no hypocrite, and I based the idea that you are an advocate for random RV camping and OHV use (which you appear to be) off a hell of a lot more than you based your assessment of me.

I was not suggesting that you do not fish or hunt or love your children. I assume everyone on the forum likes to hunt or fish and probably most of us love our kids, wives, dogs, and family. I was eluding to the fact that if push comes to shove you value camping in an RV and quading more than the conservation of habitats and wilderness that support the species we like to hunt and fish. Maybe I am wrong. I do not begrudge you for enjoying the RV and OHV's with your kids (as stated I support multiple use), but I do support setting aside areas where those activities are restricted and a more rustic wilderness experience is available. You appear to disagree, and that is fine. We can both love the outdoors and sit on opposite sides of the fence on a particular issue.

The Bighorn is a large tract of land and the PLUZ is even larger. I would love to see room for you to take your kids on designated trails in specific areas while I can take mine into an area designated for a more authentic wilderness experience. Based case scenario, when my knees and back give out my kid will be doing the same things with their kids. That is the essence of the multiple use framework.

I understand where you are coming from and I use to think almost exactly the same, and this is coming from someone who almost exclusively hunts in K country but we don’t always need to pick conservation OR atv use and random camping. The problem with the Bighorn is where it puts the power in the hands of people who have no place holding power over conservation and wildlife. I don’t own an ATV or a horse and every one of my hunts is done on foot, but there is already plenty of land for guys like me (and I assume you as well) to do what we love on foot away from vehicles. Does the bighorn need to be looked at as far as some conservation issues, absolutely but a sweeping motion like the current bighorn plan is not the way and unfortunately organizations like BHA (of which I WAS a member) have failed to recognize that and are crawling in bed with the devil (hyperbole I know). If you ever are down in the k country area and want some pointers to some awesome foot access only spots, let me know brother.

[MountainTi]

[QUOTE=oiler_nation;3909546]

Originally Posted by 243plus

What I see, and generally support, on the Bighorn plan, is that there will be a curtailment of areas that are impacted by mechanical conveyances and equipment. Curtailment, not elimination, and curtailment includes avoiding sensitive habitat, whether that is riparian areas or upland.

What I would like to see is a better definition of where that curtailment will occur. Now, part of the planning process is to roughly outline the areas that will have various activities involved, with the details being hashed out later. That is normal, from what I understand.

I also get that many, many are upset and have no trust because of the back pedaling in the Castle. Maybe if someone could suggest what a better process is, and still achieve an outcome that means less impact on the habitat we all want to enjoy one way or the other. Please don't just say "enforcement", because there is not just one magic bullet, but a multiple pronged strategy that needs to occur./QUOTE]

I share your many of the same sentiments.

It may be standard protocol to speak in high level terms at this stage of the process, but the reality is that with the Castle Wildland and wheel chair accessible huts fresh in my mind it is difficult to fully buy in without knowing what IT is. The info session I attended was a joke, the survey is one sided (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree), and I think the end product would be better served if government officials (not summer students or individuals from random departments, but Shannon Phillips and others with actual clout) sat down and had real town halls in various communities. Obviously these town halls would have to be tightly monitored to ensure respectful engagement, but at least then some of the more reasoned arguments would be heard directly by the decision makers. This would not completely undue the mistrust created in the castle (and rural Alberta is always going to have some mistrust of the NDP), but at least it would show an actual attempt to really engage with various stakeholders.

There is already BNP, JNP, Kanaskis, Castle, and if you're looking for a little more rustic, the Wilmore to have your "wilderness" experience. Many parts in between with various restrictions. How much more do you want? Almost sounds selfish to me

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by CF8889

Castle: Large WPP, with a pretty big PP: "OH MY GOD!! They shut it down! No one can or will enjoy this place thanks to the NDP/Y2Y!"

Porkies: PLUZ with a main road, OHV trails, designated places to park your trailer for free... the ability to hunt without ever been more then a few km's from your truck/quad: " OH MY GOD!! They shut it down! No one can or will enjoy this place thanks to the NDP/Y2Y!"

Bighorn:....no matter what they do: "OH MY GOD!! They shut it down! No one can or will enjoy this place thanks to the NDP/Y2Y!"


The reality is.... there is a small group of VERY vocal people pushing crazy over the top conspiracy theory non sense. Unknowingly making a total joke of the situation. Meanwhile people's opinions like WB's get buried in the non sense. I don't think the few vocal people realize they are helping Shannon more then they are hurting her....

Very insightful Kevin

[Douglas N]

Originally Posted by CF8889

Castle: Large WPP, with a pretty big PP: "OH MY GOD!! They shut it down! No one can or will enjoy this place thanks to the NDP/Y2Y!"

Porkies: PLUZ with a main road, OHV trails, designated places to park your trailer for free... the ability to hunt without ever been more then a few km's from your truck/quad: " OH MY GOD!! They shut it down! No one can or will enjoy this place thanks to the NDP/Y2Y!"

Bighorn:....no matter what they do: "OH MY GOD!! They shut it down! No one can or will enjoy this place thanks to the NDP/Y2Y!"


The reality is.... there is a small group of VERY vocal people pushing crazy over the top conspiracy theory non sense. Unknowingly making a total joke of the situation. Meanwhile people's opinions like WB's get buried in the non sense. I don't think the few vocal people realize they are helping Shannon more then they are hurting her....

I see you can cut and paste directly out of the Y2Y scripted responses. Surely you can see from the very obvious public backlash and recent polls, that Albertans opposed to the “plan” is not a small minority.

As far as helping Shannon, I’d rethink that. This is now an election issue because of her dishonesty.

[CF8889]

I think you missed my entire point...

[SnipeHunter]

Originally Posted by Douglas N

I see you can cut and paste directly out of the Y2Y scripted responses. Surely you can see from the very obvious public backlash and recent polls, that Albertans opposed to the “plan” is not a small minority.

As far as helping Shannon, I’d rethink that. This is now an election issue because of her dishonesty.

Where are these polls? Not a rhetorical question.

I see this story from today:

https://www.producer.com/2019/01/pol...-bighorn-plan/

[Douglas N]

Here’s one from this week. I have three more I’ll post if I can get them to upload.

[CF8889]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Very insightful Kevin

Lol.... swing and a miss.


I'll make it simpler for you guys



More posts like Walking Buffalo's (which was AGAINST THE PARK) and less from... well.. you guys.... and the Anti Bighorn Team numbers would triple. Too most, unfortunately, you've become a joke.

Enjoy the echo chamber. I'm out.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by CF8889

Enjoy the echo chamber. I'm out.

Sorry to see you go Kevin........I lied, not sorry

[Douglas N]

Another poll.

[Douglas N]

Poll #3 from this week.

[Douglas N]

This one is also from this week.

Still think the “vocal minority” are helping Shannon Phillips?

[243plus]

Originally Posted by Douglas N

This one is also from this week.

Still think the “vocal minority” are helping Shannon Phillips?

How many of them are shown to be statistically valid? That actually matters. Those Sun type polls mean nothing, they really don't. Nor do the CBC type... they are just as bogus. I would guess most here, including me, are not CPAWS fans (I find them too radical in the way they push their perspectives), but their poll was done by a reputable polling company.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by 243plus

How many of them are shown to be statistically valid? That actually matters. Those Sun type polls mean nothing, they really don't. Nor do the CBC type... they are just as bogus. I would guess most here, including me, are not CPAWS fans (I find them too radical in the way they push their perspectives), but their poll was done by a reputable polling company.

As you say, polls can be skewed quite easily. Wander around the downtown cores of the 2 big cities and poll the patrons of Starbucks. The type that shops at MEC and heads for Canmore or BNP. That's about all they know about the "wilderness". They have no clue about the bighorn and the many restrictions that are already in place.
Voila....a poll that suits their perspectives

[Douglas N]

Originally Posted by 243plus

How many of them are shown to be statistically valid? That actually matters. Those Sun type polls mean nothing, they really don't. Nor do the CBC type... they are just as bogus. I would guess most here, including me, are not CPAWS fans (I find them too radical in the way they push their perspectives), but their poll was done by a reputable polling company.

Take each poll for what you think it’s worth. At least the newspaper polls are available to everyone. CPAWS and other groups like them appear to be selective in who completes their polls, making them irrelevant.

[Masterchief]

The only way to get a true poll is to add it to the ballot this spring, the NDP should add a referendum to the vote and let the people decide fairly, honestly and transparently

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[beansgunsghandi]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So you want wilderness with motorized vehicle restrictions? Not being a dick, but do you have a clue how much area is already restricted to motorized vehicle use in Alberta??

Not being a Richard, but my answer would be not enough land restricted? I have seen way too much of the Bighorn and other areas beat on from various offroad users (including my own use at times). It's been interesting watching the Ghost recover from the OHV and general motorized abuse. Lot more wildlife in there off the roads, way fewer random trails and junk show "campsites," noticeably better for visitors and animals. I don't hunt some of the places I used to because I don't want to cart a deer out that far, but there are definitely more deer and even the odd elk in there, which do fill out into the areas I hunt. I support the Bighorn proposal for the same reasons, I believe future Albertans will appreciate it as we do Kananaskis and the other park areas (many of which are still open to hunting, as the Bighorn is).

[Jamie]

Fact is, this is being pushed extremely hard by a NDP gov (who for the life of me I don't understand how they have time right now. I would have assumed they would have been busy packing up their individual offices.)

This is a legacy thing for Shannon and the NDP. DO NOT TRUST A DAMN THING THAT THEY SAY. It isn't about Alberta, its about them knowing they are about to be fired and them trying to do something before they are shown the gate. Anyone that buys into the tough that this is a GOOD IDEA right now should shake their head.
If it is such a good and necessary idea, let the next Gov do it.
Do not be fooled, it can wait another 6 months.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by Jamie

This is a legacy thing for Shannon and the NDP. DO NOT TRUST A DAMN THING THAT THEY SAY. It isn't about Alberta, its about them knowing they are about to be fired and them trying to do something before they are shown the gate

I sure hope you’re right on them being punted Jamie... But I’m highly doubting it right now.

People are stupid and get sucked in by this crap. It’s very apparent in this thread here, and on others as well.

It won’t be long before I can say, “I told you so”. And at that point, most of what you loved about the West Country is long gone. Just parking lots, public toilets and hot dog stands.