Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 01-09-2019, 09:01 PM
dshaw dshaw is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post
I look at the whole Y2Y anti-american intervention speak, as sort of irrelevant, and it reads as a bit of a political smear tactic to discount the proposal without having to really engage or familiarize yourself with it. Undoubtedly there are always going to be folks that would love to eliminate hunting altogether (Stephen Legault given his profession and past history could be one of those people...although I still can't see the post), but does that mean that the Wildland Park is a bad idea full-stop? I know that the avid quad and RV guys are certainly saying that, but truthfully I am not sure. At this point, not enough information has been provided to really form any sort of an informed opinion on the proposal. That is the real issue.

Call me crazy, but I like to gather as many facts as I can before I form an opinion.

There was talk earlier in the thread that you cannot backcountry camp in the Castle Wildland. I phoned and asked the local office and this is completely bogus. Having said this, I am still concerned that they are developing the 3 backcountry huts in the Castle Wildland and preventing other users from camping within a km of each. It seems disingenuous that the government is saying we are protecting the Bighorn for environmental purposes, while at the same time saying that huts are on the table. In a provincial park? Sure. But a wildland park has different goals and backcountry huts are inconsistent with those goals. That battle appears to have been lost in the castle, but I hope this can be prevented in the Bighorn.

What I have found so frustrating throughout this process is having to listen to one side (the government) tell me don't worry just "trust us" we will sort the details out later (despite some concerning precedents set in the Castle Wildland), while the other side spreads misinformation (often deliberately) to try and garner support for the status quo. We are dealing with politicians on both sides and what is being lost is nuance and critical thought. I frankly don't know how any hunter can be ardently for or against the proposal, when there are so many unknowns. Personally, I need to know more before I can confidently weigh in, and the government isn't given us the necessary information. That is my issue. The anti-Y2Y stuff, the deliberate misinformation coming from "advocates" for our public lands just feels like unproductive noise.
You may be able to backcountry camp for now in the castle wildland, but once the huts are in i'm sure things will change. You certainly can't random camp in the castle wildland area. We were kicked out of the base of Blue Canyon for camping there with our scout groups. Problem is between fish and wildlife and parks canada they don't know all the rules either. They want us to camp in their made campsites in the future. Don't trust what the government is telling you about the Bighorn. When the castle was originally proposed it was about half the size of what the final boundaries are now. They originally had from midway up the mountain sides off limits. Then when the final plan rolled out it included 90 percent of the forest reserve boundary. We were also promised that our OHV designated trails that had been there for years would be left as is (ie Blue lake trail) they took most of those away too and slowly will phase out more. I used to be able to get firewood to heat my house in the castle but now that has been taken away. I also can't sight in my rifle in the Wildland, and my dogs have to be on a leash at all times. I can see all this for a provincial park but not a wildland. Hard to hunt birds with a dog on a leash. I'm glad you guys up north are getting heard and putting up a fight, our hope here in the south is a new government will reverse some of these rules and actually have a consultation process and listen to what we actually would like to see.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 01-09-2019, 09:19 PM
bitterrootfly bitterrootfly is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: South West Alberta and K-Country
Posts: 421
Default

Taken from the BHA Alberta Instagram page
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 6D47846A-082E-41D8-ABB8-4328AE4640CE.jpg (37.4 KB, 161 views)
__________________
Either write something worthy of doing or do something worthy of writing about.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 01-09-2019, 09:51 PM
Joe Black Joe Black is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 997
Default

All BHA members are my hero’s.

Wow. Wish I could do what they can do.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:44 AM
Denali Dave Denali Dave is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 67
Default

Dshaw, I’d like to point out there is Mis-information coming from the Pro side as well. Especially the minister in charge. Any mis-information is due to the lack of engagement with the public. I’m sure most would love to think that the Y2Ys only interest is in conservation efforts, but it’s not, it’s political. This here lies the problem, and it’s not just them, it’s all the other factions and splinter groups branching off from the extreme side camoflageing in with the hunters and anglers. Another issue is that the Minister has complete control over the Public Lands Administration Reg, and according to AEP, she is considered the Director or will appoint a “variable” Director case by case, as written into the reg. She has complete control. Once land disposition has been declared she can then enact change to the regulation.

99% of people want conservation, & preservation. It just needs to be done in a manner that has transparency and integrity. Put the f-ing politics aside and do what’s right for the Bighorn.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:46 AM
Denali Dave Denali Dave is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 67
Default

Why did I hear somewhere that the BHA in the US operates differently than here in Canada. I seem to remember some chatter about them being a respected organization down south?
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:46 AM
oiler_nation oiler_nation is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denali Dave View Post
Why did I hear somewhere that the BHA in the US operates differently than here in Canada. I seem to remember some chatter about them being a respected organization down south?
They are, and the Alberta chapter is only a few years old. My understanding is they are also against any backcountry hut facilities. You will see guys on here criticize the organization for being cautiously in support of the proposal, but it appears that most of those guys will toss out the nebulous "american based organization" rhetoric as a way of discounting what the organization stands for...again, likely to drum up more support for ATV use by conflating that hunting and atvs are joined at the hip.

I agree with you on much of your assessment of the Castle Wildland. My concern with the Bighorn is that they create this large Wildland (something I am tentatively in support of), but then they take principles that have never been part of a wildland, like huts, and include them. This is what they did down South, and it has me concerned. When you say "Wildland" you immediately invoke images of limited atv access, often more game, and less hunting pressure. That has been my experience in some of the other wildlands. For the government to cash-in on that term, but then corrupt it into something completely different is essentially selling a false bill of goods to those hunters and anglers that believe some places should be set aside for limited Atv access.

I am not a member, but I read BHA's letter the the minister on the Bighorn. While there was much I agree with, I wish they would have taken a stronger stance against huts and other backcountry development. They appear to be a well meaning organization that tries to strike a balance between the Joe's of the world who appear to want the right to ride an Atv everywhere, and the greenies that threaten our ability to hunt, fish, and trap the eastern slopes. I agree with WHY preserving the Bighorn is important, but the HOW of it is equally important to me. Wthout knowing how the proposal is to implemented it is impossible to form any sort of an informed opinion one way or the other.



Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:04 AM
ruffy71 ruffy71 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 387
Default

So I am a bit confused. When people reference that the Castle is not "as promised" are they referring to camping/RV'ing or hunting/fishing?

It seems most of the negativity is focused on camping/RV'ing. What specifically has changed in regards to access for hunting and fishing?
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:16 AM
Husty Husty is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruffy71 View Post
So I am a bit confused. When people reference that the Castle is not "as promised" are they referring to camping/RV'ing or hunting/fishing?

It seems most of the negativity is focused on camping/RV'ing. What specifically has changed in regards to access for hunting and fishing?
Not too sure about fishing, but access is an issue for older folks now who relied on ATVs to get away from things. As for hunting you need a discharge permit.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:25 AM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
Default

Hunters need to learn that Wilderness Parks are not a good thing for the future of hunting.

Jurisdictional authority to allow hunting, length of seasons, and allowable harvest levels is transferred from Fish and Wildlife to Parks.

When placed into the Parks system, hunters immediately are placed at the bottom of the totem pole of users. Any conflict, and hunters will be displaced in favour of other users.

Parks also has a different mindset as to allowable harvest. Parks managers tend to desire very low allowable harvests of ungulates, and little to no predator harvest.

One just needs to look at Kananaskis and the southern Wildland parks to see examples of how greater restrictions have been placed as Parks has taken over control.

Almost everything is on a low harvest draw. Seasons for sheep start two weeks later ( for non-hunting user desires) and black bear seasons close six weeks earlier.


Recall how much land has been subsequently closed to any hunting after Parks took control.


The Castle Plan explicitly states that in a few years Parks will revise hunting opportunity. Those that are content that hunting hasn't been effected by the new Park are ignoring that the changes to hunting have not been implemented yet.


Protecting areas from abuse and overuse DOES NOT require transferring the land into Parks authority.

I sure wish BHA could understand this....
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:53 AM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
Hunters need to learn that Wilderness Parks are not a good thing for the future of hunting.

Jurisdictional authority to allow hunting, length of seasons, and allowable harvest levels is transferred from Fish and Wildlife to Parks.

When placed into the Parks system, hunters immediately are placed at the bottom of the totem pole of users. Any conflict, and hunters will be displaced in favour of other users.

Parks also has a different mindset as to allowable harvest. Parks managers tend to desire very low allowable harvests of ungulates, and little to no predator harvest.

One just needs to look at Kananaskis and the southern Wildland parks to see examples of how greater restrictions have been placed as Parks has taken over control.

Almost everything is on a low harvest draw. Seasons for sheep start two weeks later ( for non-hunting user desires) and black bear seasons close six weeks earlier.


Recall how much land has been subsequently closed to any hunting after Parks took control.


The Castle Plan explicitly states that in a few years Parks will revise hunting opportunity. Those that are content that hunting hasn't been effected by the new Park are ignoring that the changes to hunting have not been implemented yet.


Protecting areas from abuse and overuse DOES NOT require transferring the land into Parks authority.

I sure wish BHA could understand this....
Spot on!!
I do not understand why people (re. sheeple) can't get this thru their head.
Although there are a number of things I just cannot understand about society in general nowadays....
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:11 PM
dave99 dave99 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jasper
Posts: 835
Default Bighorn Public land to Parks land proposal

Hot off the press from the National Post:

https://nationalpost.com/news/local-...9-8c19b130c4dd

I sure worry about the direction that this province is headed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by dave99; 01-10-2019 at 12:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:45 PM
Sako123 Sako123 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
Hunters need to learn that Wilderness Parks are not a good thing for the future of hunting.

Jurisdictional authority to allow hunting, length of seasons, and allowable harvest levels is transferred from Fish and Wildlife to Parks.

When placed into the Parks system, hunters immediately are placed at the bottom of the totem pole of users. Any conflict, and hunters will be displaced in favour of other users.

Parks also has a different mindset as to allowable harvest. Parks managers tend to desire very low allowable harvests of ungulates, and little to no predator harvest.

One just needs to look at Kananaskis and the southern Wildland parks to see examples of how greater restrictions have been placed as Parks has taken over control.

Almost everything is on a low harvest draw. Seasons for sheep start two weeks later ( for non-hunting user desires) and black bear seasons close six weeks earlier.


Recall how much land has been subsequently closed to any hunting after Parks took control.


The Castle Plan explicitly states that in a few years Parks will revise hunting opportunity. Those that are content that hunting hasn't been effected by the new Park are ignoring that the changes to hunting have not been implemented yet.


Protecting areas from abuse and overuse DOES NOT require transferring the land into Parks authority.

I sure wish BHA could understand this....

100% WB, this is the substantive issue right here. It is a complete waste of taxpayer resources to have 2 agencies claiming to manage the same natural resource. We have one entity (provincial biologists) that should be allowed to manage our fish and wildlife resources in a consistent manner.

Parks should have no duplicate mandate to manage our natural resources. They should stick to tourism and campground management like they have done since their inception. It is only very recently that they have been allowed to mandate creep into a bizarre duplicate resource Ministry. Unbelievable inefficient use of our tax revenues. Irresponsible and misguided.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:54 PM
Sako123 Sako123 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Default

And further, there is already existing legislation to ensure responsible use of public land without any Park involvement. All the government needs to do is supply the appropriate resources to enforce the legislation.

This parks involvement being sold as a mechanism to achieve a higher level of compliance on public land is the biggest sham ever attempted in conservation law enforcement in Canada. I am Embarrassed for all involved.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:57 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 7,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sako123 View Post

This parks involvement being sold as a mechanism to achieve a higher level of compliance on public land is the biggest sham ever attempted in conservation law enforcement in Canada. I am Embarrassed for all involved.
I'm embarrassed for those that believe it is a good thing!
__________________
Two reasons you may think CO2 is a pollutant
1.You weren't paying attention in grade 5
2. You're stupid
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:10 PM
bitterrootfly bitterrootfly is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: South West Alberta and K-Country
Posts: 421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
Hunters need to learn that Wilderness Parks are not a good thing for the future of hunting.

Jurisdictional authority to allow hunting, length of seasons, and allowable harvest levels is transferred from Fish and Wildlife to Parks.

When placed into the Parks system, hunters immediately are placed at the bottom of the totem pole of users. Any conflict, and hunters will be displaced in favour of other users.

Parks also has a different mindset as to allowable harvest. Parks managers tend to desire very low allowable harvests of ungulates, and little to no predator harvest.

One just needs to look at Kananaskis and the southern Wildland parks to see examples of how greater restrictions have been placed as Parks has taken over control.

Almost everything is on a low harvest draw. Seasons for sheep start two weeks later ( for non-hunting user desires) and black bear seasons close six weeks earlier.


Recall how much land has been subsequently closed to any hunting after Parks took control.


The Castle Plan explicitly states that in a few years Parks will revise hunting opportunity. Those that are content that hunting hasn't been effected by the new Park are ignoring that the changes to hunting have not been implemented yet.


Protecting areas from abuse and overuse DOES NOT require transferring the land into Parks authority.

I sure wish BHA could understand this....
Holy sh*t... truer words have never been posted, this is the most spot on post I have ever seen on this issue ever.
__________________
Either write something worthy of doing or do something worthy of writing about.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:09 PM
243plus 243plus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 70
Default Alberta Party wants Phillips to resign

https://www.albertaparty.ca/alberta_...annon_phillips

Looks like the calls for Minister to be gone now includes the Alberta Party. Phillips really screwed the pooch on dealing with this one. People need to know that when dealing with their government that they can trust what is being said. I still think the Bighorn proposal is basically a good proposal, but there is little trust with these shenanigans, and the Castle clusteraction situation.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:32 PM
Cervidae Cervidae is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 13
Default

Protecting areas from abuse and overuse DOES NOT require transferring the land into Parks authority.

I sure wish BHA could understand this....[/QUOTE]

^^ this. ^^.
I spend a lot of time in these areas. And most of the damage I have seen is from yuppies going camping and leaving their Walmart tents and camp sets behind when it rains because they don’t want to pack up wet camping gear or are too hungover to care.
There are already laws in place that prohibit this. But it still happens. Changing this area to a park only makes it more difficult for responsible law abiding folks to use. (Similar to banning firearms) but doesn’t really do anything for folks who don’t give a care. . The 40+ million that this project is going to cost would go a long way to better enforcement of existing regulations.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:52 PM
Abe89 Abe89 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 241
Default

. The anti-Y2Y stuff, the deliberate misinformation coming from "advocates" for our public lands just feels like unproductive noise.[/QUOTE]



Take it for what you will, but there are some good talk show interviews of Jason Nixon on coalition of Albertans for public lands fb page. In it he makes a statement that the mayor of rocky (even himself) could not get a meeting with shanon or notley, yet Y2Y officials have been seen in meetings with them. Take it for what you will, but seems to be reason for concern. Nixon seems to have his thumb on the pulse of this thing. A lot of other news articles and information there on that page as well.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:18 PM
sendero sendero is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 65
Default

As usual, walking Buffalo is spot on with his assessment of the situation. It’s worth noting that once a season has been established in an area, aboriginals can continue to hunt even if all other recreational seasons are closed. So... parks could (and very well might) shut down every hunting season within a park but technically still be seen as allowing hunting, but only because the Supreme Court said that aboriginals can continue to hunt. I’m sure WB brought this up in the castle thread several months ago.

I’m baffled as well as to why BHA would climb into bed with these folks
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:07 PM
Albertadiver's Avatar
Albertadiver Albertadiver is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sako123 View Post
And further, there is already existing legislation to ensure responsible use of public land without any Park involvement. All the government needs to do is supply the appropriate resources to enforce the legislation.

This parks involvement being sold as a mechanism to achieve a higher level of compliance on public land is the biggest sham ever attempted in conservation law enforcement in Canada. I am Embarrassed for all involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainTi View Post
I'm embarrassed for those that believe it is a good thing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sendero View Post
As usual, walking Buffalo is spot on with his assessment of the situation. It’s worth noting that once a season has been established in an area, aboriginals can continue to hunt even if all other recreational seasons are closed. So... parks could (and very well might) shut down every hunting season within a park but technically still be seen as allowing hunting, but only because the Supreme Court said that aboriginals can continue to hunt. I’m sure WB brought this up in the castle thread several months ago.

I’m baffled as well as to why BHA would climb into bed with these folks
Can't add anything better than the above.....
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:16 PM
sdb8440 sdb8440 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 221
Default

[QUOTE=oiler_nation;3908092]I look at the whole Y2Y anti-american intervention speak, as sort of irrelevant, and it reads as a bit of a political smear tactic to discount the proposal without having to really engage or familiarize yourself with it.

Call me crazy, but I like to gather as many facts as I can before I form an opinion. "


Oiler, You need to only see the opposition to any and all Canadian pipelines to realize the american influence is real. Check out Vivian Krause's site on how US money sponsored all the pipeline protest orgs in canada. Or look into how US orgs funded liberal candidates in teh last federal election.

You are either willfully blind or are an NDP/Y2Y troll. Which is it?
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:33 PM
Spruster Spruster is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 72
Default

Have a look at Shannon Phillips facebook page . Good job Jason. The picture looks like her and Rachel are looking into the skies for answers . Maybe an understanding of how to tell the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-11-2019, 07:31 AM
Wrongside Wrongside is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
Hunters need to learn that Wilderness Parks are not a good thing for the future of hunting.

Jurisdictional authority to allow hunting, length of seasons, and allowable harvest levels is transferred from Fish and Wildlife to Parks.

When placed into the Parks system, hunters immediately are placed at the bottom of the totem pole of users. Any conflict, and hunters will be displaced in favour of other users.

Parks also has a different mindset as to allowable harvest. Parks managers tend to desire very low allowable harvests of ungulates, and little to no predator harvest.

One just needs to look at Kananaskis and the southern Wildland parks to see examples of how greater restrictions have been placed as Parks has taken over control.

Almost everything is on a low harvest draw. Seasons for sheep start two weeks later ( for non-hunting user desires) and black bear seasons close six weeks earlier.


Recall how much land has been subsequently closed to any hunting after Parks took control.


The Castle Plan explicitly states that in a few years Parks will revise hunting opportunity. Those that are content that hunting hasn't been effected by the new Park are ignoring that the changes to hunting have not been implemented yet.


Protecting areas from abuse and overuse DOES NOT require transferring the land into Parks authority.

I sure wish BHA could understand this....
Seems like I have been quoting your posts a lot lately. Sorry Sir. 😋 But you keep completely nailing the issues down and this needs to be read again by the folks not paying attention.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-11-2019, 07:39 AM
Wrongside Wrongside is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruffy71 View Post
What specifically has changed in regards to access for hunting and fishing?
How about now being required to apply for permission to hunt in the area, IE; discharge permits? Or restrictions on where and when you can camp? That alone limits backcountry hunting options...

They are willing to play the long game and aren't entirely stupid. Little by little, they will cut away at our ability to hunt.

WB listed other, longer term concerns.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:18 AM
oiler_nation oiler_nation is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 127
Default

[QUOTE=sdb8440;3908980]
Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post
I look at the whole Y2Y anti-american intervention speak, as sort of irrelevant, and it reads as a bit of a political smear tactic to discount the proposal without having to really engage or familiarize yourself with it.

Call me crazy, but I like to gather as many facts as I can before I form an opinion. "


Oiler, You need to only see the opposition to any and all Canadian pipelines to realize the american influence is real. Check out Vivian Krause's site on how US money sponsored all the pipeline protest orgs in canada. Or look into how US orgs funded liberal candidates in teh last federal election.

You are either willfully blind or are an NDP/Y2Y troll. Which is it?
First off, grow-up pal. We can have a healthy discourse on here without reverting to accusations and insults.

I am well aware that there is foreign influence on the pipeline issue, but to say foreign money is the reason we can't get Energy East built is a gross oversimplification...regardless of what you read on Viv's blog. Canada has struggled with regionalism since confederation and to build Energy East we have to pass through provinces that have been historically hostile to Canada's oil industry. This is not new (see Trudeau senior), and the issue has only been exacerbated in today's world where people prefer to remain blissfully ignorant about where their energy, fuel, and food comes from. This has created a situation where an increasing portion of our population will eat meat, but be anti-hunting or drive to work and be anti-pipeline.

More to the point, the issue I have is the amount of guys (you included) who rely on vast generalizations about "foreign money" with respect to the Bighorn. The reality is that creating parks is popular in urban areas, and plays extremely well with the NDP's base. That is why this is happening, and to discount that in favour of some crackpot conspiracy theory is ridiculous. I just hope like hell that the UCP is smart enough to realize that running on a platform of killing the bighorn proposal completely may be the one thing that could prevent them from winning the coming election (or at least getting a majority). While I have not spoke with Jason Nixon myself, it is my understanding he has even admitted as much in private conversation.

As far as this being the first step towards eliminating hunting, I completely disagree. Kananaskis has allowed hunting since it was created, and the reality is that the Bighorn will never have the traffic or development of Kananaskis. Furthermore, I am not sure it is a good look if we as hunters and anglers are vehemently opposed to any steps taken to conserve the Bighorn. How it is happening and the lack of information? Sure. But to say that we want the proposal scraped completely is a dangerous position to take when we are already coming up against a growing and largely urban population of non-hunters who may not fully understand our lifestyle. We have always been able to sell ourselves to non-hunters as the only true conservationists, but what message do we send if we stonewall this completely?

There seems to be an anti-BHA sentiment held by many of you, but perhaps they are right to try working with multiple stakeholders in an attempt to ensure hunters are part of the discussion in how this wildland is manage. It has to be a better long-term strategy for hunting than affixing our tin foil hats, shouting conspiracy theories, and accusing those among us who believe hunters should do more for conservation than merely buy a tag of being NDP supporting Y2Y trolls.

Again, I have concerns over the proposal myself and that is why I have spent so much time THINKING and ASKING QUESTIONS. It would be so much easier to just spout nonsense than actually engage with the proposal itself.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:35 AM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,287
Default

[QUOTE=oiler_nation;3909317]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdb8440 View Post

First off, grow-up pal. We can have a healthy discourse on here without reverting to accusations and insults.

I am well aware that there is foreign influence on the pipeline issue, but to say foreign money is the reason we can't get Energy East built is a gross oversimplification...regardless of what you read on Viv's blog. Canada has struggled with regionalism since confederation and to build Energy East we have to pass through provinces that have been historically hostile to Canada's oil industry. This is not new (see Trudeau senior), and the issue has only been exacerbated in today's world where people prefer to remain blissfully ignorant about where their energy, fuel, and food comes from. This has created a situation where an increasing portion of our population will eat meat, but be anti-hunting or drive to work and be anti-pipeline.

More to the point, the issue I have is the amount of guys (you included) who rely on vast generalizations about "foreign money" with respect to the Bighorn. The reality is that creating parks is popular in urban areas, and plays extremely well with the NDP's base. That is why this is happening, and to discount that in favour of some crackpot conspiracy theory is ridiculous. I just hope like hell that the UCP is smart enough to realize that running on a platform of killing the bighorn proposal completely may be the one thing that could prevent them from winning the coming election (or at least getting a majority). While I have not spoke with Jason Nixon myself, it is my understanding he has even admitted as much in private conversation.

As far as this being the first step towards eliminating hunting, I completely disagree. Kananaskis has allowed hunting since it was created, and the reality is that the Bighorn will never have the traffic or development of Kananaskis. Furthermore, I am not sure it is a good look if we as hunters and anglers are vehemently opposed to any steps taken to conserve the Bighorn. How it is happening and the lack of information? Sure. But to say that we want the proposal scraped completely is a dangerous position to take when we are already coming up against a growing and largely urban population of non-hunters who may not fully understand our lifestyle. We have always been able to sell ourselves to non-hunters as the only true conservationists, but what message do we send if we stonewall this completely?

There seems to be an anti-BHA sentiment held by many of you, but perhaps they are right to try working with multiple stakeholders in an attempt to ensure hunters are part of the discussion in how this wildland is manage. It has to be a better long-term strategy for hunting than affixing our tin foil hats, shouting conspiracy theories, and accusing those among us who believe hunters should do more for conservation than merely buy a tag of being NDP supporting Y2Y trolls.

Again, I have concerns over the proposal myself and that is why I have spent so much time THINKING and ASKING QUESTIONS. It would be so much easier to just spout nonsense than actually engage with the proposal itself.
Good post, be careful of what you believe. Personal investigation is a good thing. If you believe all of what you read here you would think the government did no consultation, when in fact they put out questionnaires for a good amount of time. A lot of information was available on the questionnaires right here on this site.
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:42 AM
RZR RZR is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 838
Default

Hypocrite, If you think that making parks is for the betterment of Albertans better think again. Shannon has here own agenda and that is to limit the use of the forestry weather it be for campers, ohv users, anglers or hunters and so far it is work as planned just look at what she has done in the south country. She has done a bang up job if your a supporter of y2y.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:46 AM
RZR RZR is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 838
Default

[QUOTE=pikergolf;3909329]
Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post

Good post, be careful of what you believe. Personal investigation is a good thing. If you believe all of what you read here you would think the government did no consultation, when in fact they put out questionnaires for a good amount of time. A lot of information was available on the questionnaires right here on this site.
Yea and those questionnaires were worded in a way that you didn’t really know what you were answering about or what you wanted to answer. Very poor questionnaires
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:10 PM
oiler_nation oiler_nation is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RZR View Post
Hypocrite, If you think that making parks is for the betterment of Albertans better think again. Shannon has here own agenda and that is to limit the use of the forestry weather it be for campers, ohv users, anglers or hunters and so far it is work as planned just look at what she has done in the south country. She has done a bang up job if your a supporter of y2y.
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?

I support a multiple use framework which includes ATV's, hikers, horsemen, and hunters and anglers, but I do not think that means everywhere should be open to ATV use or accessible for random motor home camping either. That is just my take as a hunter and fly fisherman. In the same way I think that backcountry huts in the Castle Wildland dilutes the wilderness experience, I hold the same view of ATV's. I also acknowledge that Alberta has a culture of ATV use that there has to be places where this is allowed to continue. My hope is that a reasonable compromise is reached where there are areas in the Bighorn Wildland accessible for the RZR's and Joe's of the world and other areas that are still accessible to both of you if you are willing to park the machines. I too have concerns in what has occurred in the Castle (for me it is the huts, but I get the frustration over the current trail network or lack thereof). It is my hope that it doesn't occur in the Bighorn, and I sincerely believe it won't given the significant backlash and coverage. It is unfortunate that the Castle situation did not erupt in quiet the same way, but I think much of the Bighorn backlash has been driven by some of the false promises that occured in the Castle Wildland.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:23 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post

As far as this being the first step towards eliminating hunting, I completely disagree.

Kananaskis has allowed hunting since it was created, and the reality is that the Bighorn will never have the traffic or development of Kananaskis.

Furthermore, I am not sure it is a good look if we as hunters and anglers are vehemently opposed to any steps taken to conserve the Bighorn.


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.





From the NDP government on future management of hunting in the Castle.

-----------------
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.
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.