Castle Wildland Park

[Huevos]

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

[ishootbambi]

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

[walking buffalo]

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

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

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

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

[honda450]

Originally Posted by Huevos

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

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

[Pudelpointer]

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

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

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

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

[landowner]

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

[Huevos]

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

[Pudelpointer]

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

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

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

[landowner]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

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

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

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

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

[bessiedog]

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

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

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

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

[Huevos]

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

[silver lab]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

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

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

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

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

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

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by silver lab

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

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

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

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

[silver lab]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

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

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

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

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

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Huevos

Just got done reading an article on proposed wildland park for castle river area. No atv, no bikes, restricted horse and mountain bike use, but of course the cattle get to stay cause they don't cause any damage.

Cattle do not belong in parks. Period.

As for the proposed Wildland Park... hey, better than a Provincial Park!

[landowner]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Cattle do not belong in parks. Period.

As for the proposed Wildland Park... hey, better than a Provincial Park!

Its not a park yet. If it becomes a park the cattle will eventually go, along with hunting, random camping, trapping, industry, etc. etc. etc. Do not trust the Sierra club !

[silver lab]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Cattle do not belong in parks. Period.

As for the proposed Wildland Park... hey, better than a Provincial Park!

I take it you never looked at the map. Some of it is provincial park!!!
I will do everything in my power(which may not be much) to stop the tree huggers! And keep the Castle the way it is!!