Castle Area Soon Closed To All OHV Use

[LKILR]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

This is the old , worn out, tired 'deflection-distraction' argument. It's old, tiring, and just soooo drives me around the bend. Red herring...!

Yes Ram Crazy... and pine beetle destroys wayyy more backcountry than ANY of the big bass YOU've mentioned...... so I'm being bad-wrong cause I'm not dealing with that issue.

..... somehow this excuses the damage quads do?....

Sad... and silly and very invalid argument.

Thanks for trying to derail.

Thanx Bessie. ram crazy can't think of better argument. I'm not Hippocrates I don't log or oilfield

[LKILR]

Nowadays any activity can be traced back to the "footprint" left behind. As hunters we need to choose activities that leave a smaller footprint. Smaller footprint less people notice and less people complain about the activity. So if your ok with ripping up the land with your atvs to the point that people can easily see the footprint then expect people to complain. Do you think they shut down areas for no good reason? Atv abuse just adds fuel to the fire. THINK!!!!

[LKILR]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

They used to pound trucks into these places.

I've never seen a truck on top of pasque mountain. But the quads have made a trail to the top. That trail wasn't there in 1986 when I first hunted there.

[Newview01]

Still lots of you happy with the goings on..

Can't you do the outdoorsman crowd a solid and fight for enforcement and not a total ban? It seems those who are for the OHV ban are complaining largely about the damage caused. If thats the problem, the first step should be taken, and that's enforcement. Don't jump to step 6 and cheer on an OHV ban.

If you are hunting and an ATV roars through your setup, whose fault is it if the animal you are after runs off? Responsible OHV riders should have just as much rights as hunters, but many of you think hunters should have the upper hand.

As someone else said, Bob Creek is a prime example. It was closed for "stream repair". Apparently it is still closed, many months later? There wasn't even a stream that was crossed by ATV trails to repair. In addition, the cattle that grazed Bob Creek caused a lot more damage than ATVs ever did. Im sure Ms. Phillips was involved with these decisions.

The agenda is to keep people out of the Eastern Slopes with the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative. OHVs are only the first target...

[LKILR]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Still lots of you happy with the goings on..

Can't you do the outdoorsman crowd a solid and fight for enforcement and not a total ban? It seems those who are for the OHV ban are complaining largely about the damage caused. If thats the problem, the first step should be taken, and that's enforcement. Don't jump to step 6 and cheer on an OHV ban.

If you are hunting and an ATV roars through your setup, whose fault is it if the animal you are after runs off? Responsible OHV riders should have just as much rights as hunters, but many of you think hunters should have the upper hand.

As someone else said, Bob Creek is a prime example. It was closed for "stream repair". Apparently it is still closed, many months later? There wasn't even a stream that was crossed by ATV trails to repair. In addition, the cattle that grazed Bob Creek caused a lot more damage than ATVs ever did. Im sure Ms. Phillips was involved with these decisions.

The agenda is to keep people out of the Eastern Slopes with the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative. OHVs are only the first target...

Name one area that is banned from public use.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

Have you seen the damage in WMU 402 that the lumber companies have done, have you seen the damage the cattle did in WMU 402, have you seen the damage Mother Nature did in WMU 402, have you seen the damage the gas/oil companies did in WMU 402, have you seen the damage the mining companies did in WMU 402, have you seen the damage campers have done in WMU 402. If your going to point fingers remember there are three fingers pointing back at you as well. Don't be a Hippocrate!!

All these industries are necessary, oil and gas to fuel our cars and homes, logging to build the homes we live in, mining to make the things we need, farming for the things we eat and other necessities of life. They provide hundreds of thousands of jobs and fuel our economy. Yes these industries have collateral damage to our environment. We try to minimize it by replanting and rehabilitating these areas after they are harvested or after production of whatever resource is shut down. The difference with quads and some other activities that are damaging the environment is that they are not necessary, the damage they do is for ****s, giggles, thrills and entertainment.

I'm not saying ban quads, just use them responsibly, if we don't have to drive up a creek, bust a trail into the alpine, or rip roostertails thru the muskeg and damage something that isn't damaged for no more reason than the thrill of ripping up another muskeg when we can go around the muskeg on a solid trail, or cross the creek on a bridge instead of driving straight down the creek to rinse the mud off the quad then maybe the small minority of us who do these things shouldn't be doing those things. The majority of quadders are not a problem, but there are thousands in our ranks that are. Instead of fighting the bans we should be fighting the bad actors among us. This is what people get upset about and what is driving the movement to ban quads in certain areas. Clean up our ranks and put pressure on the bad element, quad responsibly and there might not be so much objection to the quadding community. It's no different than what poachers are to the hunting and fishing community, there is always outrage among the hunting and fishing community when poachers are encountered, most hunters and fisherman actively try to police their ranks, report and hopefully convict or at least discourage nefarious activity. There seems to be little outrage by the quadding community when they see some a**hat rip up and down a creek, cut fences, or drive around drunk. The quad community needs to lead the effort to clean and educate their community and set an example of clean quadding. None of these bans should be necessary but will continue until the quad community sees the bigger picture and peer pressures offenders into acting responsibly. If we don't someone else will and that's what's happening now.

[Stubb]

I'm probably going to get roasted for this but what about restricting the size of the machines allowed on the trails. In the last 10-15 years I've enjoyed quadding at Lynx, Allison, Beaver Mines, Maclean, Rocky Mountain etc. and have seen a lot more damage on the trail system and around it since the side by sides came out. Wasn't so bad when it was a 450 Rhino but just like everything else they get bigger and badder. I've seen on multiple occasions the damage one of these big powerful machines have done to a trail in front of me in a matter of minutes. I'm not taking a dig at the SxS owners as I see where the great benefits of having a multi passenger machine is. In the spirit of trying to make a compromise to keep the trails open maybe a size restriction and a province wide trail membership fee....

[Joe Black]

"Quads...... nope. Them users just don't play nice with other sportsmen."

by bessiedog.

who's generalising now?

How do you know how, and what i use my quad for when i hunt? How do you know i don't play nice? keep your nose in "yer" own buisness


Here's my generalisation. "All non-quad hunters are simply jealous that they cannot afford a quad, and hate the fact that quad users have the upper hand in accessing area" true ,no?

unfortunate. in one of your other posts on this subject, you did show a bit of tolerance to quad users. I thought, ok, maybe we can respect each others forms of hunting. nope. showing your true colours now. just calling spade a spade.

[Big Grey Wolf]

Stubb, I agree with you, when we first had Big Red trikes you could hardly spin your wheels, the big flotation tires just bent the grass down in the muskeg.
Now we have Quads on steroids called monster SxS,! that rip up the back country.

[lead chucker]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

DIscharge permit, hmmmmmmmmmm

What you anti OHV eletists think of that smoking gun?

Oh not to worry. Business as usually without those pesky ATV's right?

I did read that in the draft as well. I do not hunt that area, so the actual hunting restrictions that WILL be placed in the area will not affect me positively or negatively. I am concerned of the overall ramifications of the NDP doing as they please, having a anti hunt/OHV/trapping/fishing/ etc agenda.

For those who feel this is a good thing, I suggest you sit down, read the 164 page document BEFORE you go online and agree to it cause you figure it's going to increase your hunting opportunities. You make the bed, you lay in it.

This is the most accurate statement on this thread. What I don't get is the way all the user groups are fighting.this is exactly what they want.thanks people

[kedive]

So I noticed a lot of people complaining about this plan in this thread and not one person has mentioned the survey they are doing. Please fill out the survey they do these and a lot of the time they get ignored.

https://talkaep.alberta.ca/CastleMan...nt-plan-survey

[Joe Black]

See below. On the crowsnest Pass Quad Squad Face book/website. Make it if you can, and get in touch with them if you can help/have ideas to stop these changes.

Town hall meeting please pass on the word!!!!!!!!!!! Wade has set up a town hall meeting at Cowley community center on Feb 7th, 2017 at 7:00 at which time MLA Pat Stier will be in attendance. This is our chance for everyone to come out and voice their opinions. We are also trying to see if our MP John Barlow can also attend.


bessiedog, you want to car pool?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by LKILR

Name one area that is banned from public use.

There is not an area banned for public use, I did not say that there was. My point is that the eco nutjobs would like to see large swaths of land left to nature. By banning a little of this and a little of that, over time we will see the accessibility of nature decrease more and more.

[Dewey Cox]

Nobody on here wants a complete ban of atv's on public land.
But changes are coming. They have to.
If you're not coming up with a sustainable solution to rally around, you aren't helping stop a complete ban.
Crying "other people wreck the land too" is not a solution, and doesn't help anything at all.

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by kedive

So I noticed a lot of people complaining about this plan in this thread and not one person has mentioned the survey they are doing. Please fill out the survey they do these and a lot of the time they get ignored.

https://talkaep.alberta.ca/CastleMan...nt-plan-survey

here are the reasons no one should fill this out. you need to agree or disagree with a rigged question.

question #3 re hunting.... "hunting as a management" why didn't they state "agree/disagree with hunting. period"


question #4 re OHV's "that a transition period is necessary for elimination"

why didn't they state "should they be allowed at all. period"


They force you to agree/disagree with issues that are not the root issue. and as for the comments, they will not be included in the tally's in their rigged questions. wake up Sheeple.

[Fur]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

All these industries are necessary, oil and gas to fuel our cars and homes, logging to build the homes we live in, mining to make the things we need, farming for the things we eat and other necessities of life. They provide hundreds of thousands of jobs and fuel our economy. Yes these industries have collateral damage to our environment. We try to minimize it by replanting and rehabilitating these areas after they are harvested or after production of whatever resource is shut down. The difference with quads and some other activities that are damaging the environment is that they are not necessary, the damage they do is for ****s, giggles, thrills and entertainment.

I'm not saying ban quads, just use them responsibly, if we don't have to drive up a creek, bust a trail into the alpine, or rip roostertails thru the muskeg and damage something that isn't damaged for no more reason than the thrill of ripping up another muskeg when we can go around the muskeg on a solid trail, or cross the creek on a bridge instead of driving straight down the creek to rinse the mud off the quad then maybe the small minority of us who do these things shouldn't be doing those things. The majority of quadders are not a problem, but there are thousands in our ranks that are. Instead of fighting the bans we should be fighting the bad actors among us. This is what people get upset about and what is driving the movement to ban quads in certain areas. Clean up our ranks and put pressure on the bad element, quad responsibly and there might not be so much objection to the quadding community. It's no different than what poachers are to the hunting and fishing community, there is always outrage among the hunting and fishing community when poachers are encountered, most hunters and fisherman actively try to police their ranks, report and hopefully convict or at least discourage nefarious activity. There seems to be little outrage by the quadding community when they see some a**hat rip up and down a creek, cut fences, or drive around drunk. The quad community needs to lead the effort to clean and educate their community and set an example of clean quadding. None of these bans should be necessary but will continue until the quad community sees the bigger picture and peer pressures offenders into acting responsibly. If we don't someone else will and that's what's happening now.

Very true we need oil and gas for our cars, wood for our houses etc.

The problem with this approach is if I am PAYING for public land (taxes, recreational licenses for hunting fishing etc) but I am banned from enjoying my activity on those lands, what incentive do I have to really care about preservation. It is not the right attitude, but an approach with most people. If I cannot enjoy it, why pay for it? It is a real risk with banning activities. Banning activities removes groups of RESPONSIBLE users from the conversation.

Enforcement first. Why doesn't the NDP create some much needed jobs and still let ALL USERS enjoy the outdoors.

[Wolftrapper]

Originally Posted by Fur

Very true we need oil and gas for our cars, wood for our houses etc.

The problem with this approach is if I am PAYING for public land (taxes, recreational licenses for hunting fishing etc) but I am banned from enjoying my activity on those lands, what incentive do I have to really care about preservation. It is not the right attitude, but an approach with most people. If I cannot enjoy it, why pay for it? It is a real risk with banning activities. Banning activities removes groups of RESPONSIBLE users from the conversation.

Enforcement first. Why doesn't the NDP create some much needed jobs and still let ALL USERS enjoy the outdoors.

More enforcement would be a great thing for sure. However can you imagine the whining and complaining on here anytime they are checked by Police, CO's, etc.
I think it's. to late in a lot of areas and the damage has been done by them. To many are tired of it. The NDP will clean it up now.

[Joe Black]

from the Pincher creek echo:

Highway vehicles are no longer permitted on trails within the parks
▶▶ A firearm discharge permit is required for hunting within Castle Provincial Park
▶▶ Other firearm uses — not related to hunting — are no longer permitted
▶▶ Random camping within the provincial or wildland provincial parks is not permitted
▶▶ Use of trails for non-designated purposes or random trail development is not permitted


so even the horse guys will be bound to day trips. no random camping. no sighting in of guns??????(have to prove its related to hunting)

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

from the Pincher creek echo:

Highway vehicles are no longer permitted on trails within the parks
▶▶ A firearm discharge permit is required for hunting within Castle Provincial Park
▶▶ Other firearm uses — not related to hunting — are no longer permitted
▶▶ Random camping within the provincial or wildland provincial parks is not permitted
▶▶ Use of trails for non-designated purposes or random trail development is not permitted


so even the horse guys will be bound to day trips. no random camping. no sighting in of guns??????(have to prove its related to hunting)

This (bolded above) does not seem to be accurate.
From the Parks Draft.

Undesignated backcountry camping within the Wildland Provincial Park allows visitors to enjoy an entirely self-sufficient wilderness experience by camping in desirable undesignated locations. Visitors must camp using “leave-no-trace” principles and in an area prescribed for undesignated camping, or be no closer than 1 kilometre from a designated campground or public roadway.

Although The location and density of designated camping sites could severely limit where random camping would be allowed, even to the point of eliminating it.


Did anyone read anything in the draft plan pertaining to the non-hunting/fishing harvest of wild edibles such as mushrooms and berries?

[Joe Black]

I might add, the above makes it more restrictive than Kananaskis, as it stands today.

are they(echo news) wrong regarding the random camping? they do a have a restriction on hanging game in the designated spots, so go straight home if you get an animal.

wonder what the restrictions are on equestrian users? can they lodge their horses in the designated campgrounds? can they bring in hay that may have non resident grass/weed seed in it? can the horses crap in the campground or on the trails without cleaning it up? Crap contains undigested seeds that will be spread around the park. hmmmmmm

[bessiedog]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

See below. On the crowsnest Pass Quad Squad Face book/website. Make it if you can, and get in touch with them if you can help/have ideas to stop these changes.

Town hall meeting please pass on the word!!!!!!!!!!! Wade has set up a town hall meeting at Cowley community center on Feb 7th, 2017 at 7:00 at which time MLA Pat Stier will be in attendance. This is our chance for everyone to come out and voice their opinions. We are also trying to see if our MP John Barlow can also attend.


bessiedog, you want to car pool?

What makes
You think I'm not going to be there...?

You talk a great game. We'll see u there. Bet u a beer u won't show.

[KBF]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

I might add, the above makes it more restrictive than Kananaskis, as it stands today.

are they(echo news) wrong regarding the random camping? they do a have a restriction on hanging game in the designated spots, so go straight home if you get an animal.

wonder what the restrictions are on equestrian users? can they lodge their horses in the designated campgrounds? can they bring in hay that may have non resident grass/weed seed in it? can the horses crap in the campground or on the trails without cleaning it up? Crap contains undigested seeds that will be spread around the park. hmmmmmm

Don't give them anymore ideas and make it more complicated than it needs to be.

[HunterDave]

I'm not familiar with the issue but to me it sounds like those areas will be designated as Provincial Parks. I thought that you couldn't hunt in a Provincial Park anyway so using an atv for the purposes for hunting there is a moot point. Do I have that correct?

Alberta to expand Castle area parks, phase out off-highway vehicles

Premier Rachel Notley has announced the Castle Wildland Provincial Park and the new Castle Provincial Park will preserve 103,000 hectares of mountains and foothills.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says off-highway vehicles will not be allowed within the new Castle boundary.

PINCHER CREEK, Alta. — Alberta has announced final boundaries for a pair of protected areas in southwestern Alberta and will move to phase out off-highway vehicles in the region.

Premier Rachel Notley said the Castle Wildland Provincial Park and the new Castle Provincial Park will preserve just over 1,000 square kilometres of mountains and foothills, a crucial link in a developing wildlife corridor that reaches from the United States into Yukon.
"The Castle needs enhanced measures to keep its beauty intact," she said Friday in a conference call from Pincher Creek.
Part of those measures will include a complete phase-out of off-highway vehicles over five years.
Gary Clark of the Quad Squad, a group of off-highway vehicle users, said the original plan announced in September 2015 was for quads to be allowed in the provincial park.
"They've taken a complete flip. They've basically taken this area and turned it into a conservation park.
"It's almost like the government is saying, 'We don't want you here. Carry on to B.C.'"
Between roads, designated trails and informal trails, a recent survey found the wildland park area has a road density of just over one kilometre per square kilometre. The land that will be provincial park has a density of 3.5 kilometres per square kilometre.

Alberta's threshold for bear recovery is a maximum of 0.75 kilometres per square kilometre.
Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said scientific research convinced the government that the Castle wasn't the place for motorized recreation. She said existing Castle trails eventually will be restored and other land made available for off-highway vehicles.
"We have a number of other places and public land in other spots where we can work with the OHV to find the resources to build the appropriate trails, bridges and staging areas. We're going to take a period of years to ensure the right pieces are in place," she said.
Alternate land is available near the town of Crowsnest Pass and elsewhere in southwestern Alberta, she said.
Clark has his doubts. He said adjacent areas are already moving to restrict off-highway vehicles. The Castle wilderness can remain open to off-roaders and still support wildlife with better signage and enforcement, he suggested.
The total amount of land within the boundaries hasn't changed since the original announcement in the fall of 2015. The wildland park has been slightly expanded at the expense of the provincial park to better protect some areas, said Phillips.
Joanna Skrajny of the Alberta Wilderness Association said the plan focuses on restoring habitat as well as the headwaters of rivers such as the Oldman, which is home to endangered cutthroat trout.
"The fact they're focusing on the headwaters is encouraging," she said. "It seems like they're serious about restoration."
She said the association wanted off-highway vehicles banned immediately from the park.
There will be a 60-day period for public comment on the draft management plan. A tourism plan will also be developed.
Notley said the park will be run in consultation with the Piikani First Nation.
"It's a great day," said Piikani Chief Stanley Grier.
"This territory is pristine. It's important we entrench this type of territory for all to enjoy."
Notley added the move is expected to create 44 jobs.
The Castle area is home to more than 200 rare or at-risk species on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains and near British Columbia and Montana.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/...-vehicles.html

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by LKILR

I've never seen a truck on top of pasque mountain. But the quads have made a trail to the top. That trail wasn't there in 1986 when I first hunted there.

You'd ***** your pants where I used to take a truck.

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

What makes
You think I'm not going to be there...?

You talk a great game. We'll see u there. Bet u a beer u won't show.

Fill me in on what game I'm talking.

Can't wait to see you stand up and say that quad users don't play nice with other sportsman, or whatever you were spewing about before. That way I'll know who you are and I can collect my beer.

No moonshine please.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I'm not familiar with the issue but to me it sounds like those areas will be designated as Provincial Parks. I thought that you couldn't hunt in a Provincial Park anyway so using an atv for the purposes for hunting there is a moot point. Do I have that correct?

Alberta to expand Castle area parks, phase out off-highway vehicles

Premier Rachel Notley has announced the Castle Wildland Provincial Park and the new Castle Provincial Park will preserve 103,000 hectares of mountains and foothills.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says off-highway vehicles will not be allowed within the new Castle boundary.

PINCHER CREEK, Alta. — Alberta has announced final boundaries for a pair of protected areas in southwestern Alberta and will move to phase out off-highway vehicles in the region.

Premier Rachel Notley said the Castle Wildland Provincial Park and the new Castle Provincial Park will preserve just over 1,000 square kilometres of mountains and foothills, a crucial link in a developing wildlife corridor that reaches from the United States into Yukon.
"The Castle needs enhanced measures to keep its beauty intact," she said Friday in a conference call from Pincher Creek.
Part of those measures will include a complete phase-out of off-highway vehicles over five years.
Gary Clark of the Quad Squad, a group of off-highway vehicle users, said the original plan announced in September 2015 was for quads to be allowed in the provincial park.
"They've taken a complete flip. They've basically taken this area and turned it into a conservation park.
"It's almost like the government is saying, 'We don't want you here. Carry on to B.C.'"
Between roads, designated trails and informal trails, a recent survey found the wildland park area has a road density of just over one kilometre per square kilometre. The land that will be provincial park has a density of 3.5 kilometres per square kilometre.

Alberta's threshold for bear recovery is a maximum of 0.75 kilometres per square kilometre.
Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said scientific research convinced the government that the Castle wasn't the place for motorized recreation. She said existing Castle trails eventually will be restored and other land made available for off-highway vehicles.
"We have a number of other places and public land in other spots where we can work with the OHV to find the resources to build the appropriate trails, bridges and staging areas. We're going to take a period of years to ensure the right pieces are in place," she said.
Alternate land is available near the town of Crowsnest Pass and elsewhere in southwestern Alberta, she said.
Clark has his doubts. He said adjacent areas are already moving to restrict off-highway vehicles. The Castle wilderness can remain open to off-roaders and still support wildlife with better signage and enforcement, he suggested.
The total amount of land within the boundaries hasn't changed since the original announcement in the fall of 2015. The wildland park has been slightly expanded at the expense of the provincial park to better protect some areas, said Phillips.
Joanna Skrajny of the Alberta Wilderness Association said the plan focuses on restoring habitat as well as the headwaters of rivers such as the Oldman, which is home to endangered cutthroat trout.
"The fact they're focusing on the headwaters is encouraging," she said. "It seems like they're serious about restoration."
She said the association wanted off-highway vehicles banned immediately from the park.
There will be a 60-day period for public comment on the draft management plan. A tourism plan will also be developed.
Notley said the park will be run in consultation with the Piikani First Nation.
"It's a great day," said Piikani Chief Stanley Grier.
"This territory is pristine. It's important we entrench this type of territory for all to enjoy."
Notley added the move is expected to create 44 jobs.
The Castle area is home to more than 200 rare or at-risk species on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains and near British Columbia and Montana.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/...-vehicles.html

Thanks for that

[Bub]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

You'd ***** your pants where I used to take a truck.

Seems like you are part of the problem then, no?

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by KBF

Don't give them anymore ideas and make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Who's to say it isn't coming? Can you say what I stated is not a legitimate concer?

So maybe now horse guys can maybe understand losing public access to an area for anybody is a slippery slope.

Or maybe they feel they are the only group that don't cause any harm to the environment, and should be exempt from any restrictions?

Back to the beginning. Allow access to all on public land, allowing all to have areas to enjoy the Access they prefer. They can designate areas so you don't interrupt another's access. Done.

[Bushrat]

[QUOTE=Joe Black;3452244]


Here's my generalisation. "All non-quad hunters are simply jealous that they cannot afford a quad, and hate the fact that quad users have the upper hand in accessing area" true ,no?

[QUOTE]

Not likely, there are thousands of hunters who could go out and pay cash for a brand new loaded quad if they wanted but don't own one. On the other hand I'm betting 75% (probably higher) of quad 'owners' have had to finance the quad they drive. If you have to make payments on a quad you probably shouldn't be 'buying' it.

[Joe Black]

[QUOTE=Bushrat;3452729][QUOTE=Joe Black;3452244]


Here's my generalisation. "All non-quad hunters are simply jealous that they cannot afford a quad, and hate the fact that quad users have the upper hand in accessing area" true ,no?

Not likely, there are thousands of hunters who could go out and pay cash for a brand new loaded quad if they wanted but don't own one. On the other hand I'm betting 75% (probably higher) of quad 'owners' have had to finance the quad they drive. If you have to make payments on a quad you probably shouldn't be 'buying' it.

Agree with you 100 per. I was making a point that generalizations and opinions are great, but not always true. IF you want to want to be credible in your post(Bessiedog) try sticking to facts that can be debated.