BHA Alberta Chapter

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Why do you have to belong to a group? Not saying it as a negative thing, but if there is not a group that doesn't align with your views, don't settle.. And of course BHA has some great ideas that we can get behind, but the fact remains they believe that OHV use is not as important.

The Government listens to Lobby groups not single people on a one on one basis .
Cat

[59whiskers]

There seems to be a divide and conquer mentality with the BHA. I like the Alberta Fish and Game Association (AFGA) because they have a more balanced approach about all user group concerns. The AFGA had input with other user groups with the previous government South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP). I am really leery about the BHA eliminating reasonable access to hunting and fishing areas in this area. Where was the BHA when the SSRP was drafted in 2014?

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by 59whiskers

There seems to be a divide and conquer mentality with the BHA. I like the Alberta Fish and Game Association (AFGA) because they have a more balanced approach about all user group concerns. The AFGA had input with other user groups with the previous government South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP). I am really leery about the BHA eliminating reasonable access to hunting and fishing areas in this area. Where was the BHA when the SSRP was drafted in 2014?

I don't see divide and conquer. I hunt and fish, I have nothing in common with those that tear the crap out of our wild spaces. Nothing. I feel no obligation to support them, as much as they like to play the we are in this together. They destroy or support those that destroy, it has nothing to do with me and is at odds with my goal, which is to preserve wild places for my grandchildren.

I support OHV's in a controlled environment. I would absolutely support a big park for them to rip and tear to their hearts content. But turn them loose on Albertas wild spaces, no thanks. And I don't believe I am in the minority, I believe most Albertan's feel this way.

[DMaterelli]

IMHO:

This group has sprung up as a result of a pretty severe push back to a government not listening to the local and current user groups. This is a quick and dirty way to add the optics that the hunting and fishing community is split on the issue.

It seems the membership of about 20 people (as opposed to AFGA's 20,000 members) are all closely aligned with the push to create this park. They claim to be all about the resource, but I question as to whether they really are.

Some guys one the FB page are asking good questions about why they are not speaking up about the Provincial Park designation, as it will create limits on hunting. They are also asking about the 20 million being pumped into the ski hill (water and roads). The comments from this BHA group pretty much confirm they really don't care, just be quiet and take the park boys. You are just anti science and obviously can't be reasoned with.

Not only do I not support this group, I think they are the worst form of divisive, myopic and self serving threat to our hunting and fishing heritage.

Looks like half of them are TU Calgary folks - and I really doubt any of them are thinking how they as anglers effect watersheds and cutthroat populations. Way to easy to throw stones at other user groups. I think the science on the increase in angler days and the kill of even the best catch and release guys might have a impact on the fishery as much as silting in of reds due to OHV use. But that is inconvenient science, so lets not look at that.

[DMaterelli]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

The Government listens to Lobby groups not single people on a one on one basis .
Cat

And most definitely ones that are rolled out coincidentally at the time of need, that happen to be beating the pre-determined tune on the drum...

[59whiskers]

All my life I have fished, hunted, camped remotely in the high country/campgrounds, berry picked, cut wood, some 4x4/OHV, skied at the hill, camped at Impessa,,etc. The zone 400 is not the pristine wilderness location it once was seeing that every valley has been logged, gas explored, with haul roads into every valley since the 1950's or earlier. I support a maintained OHV trail system on old main haul roads. Nature has taken back lots of back country with many old trails gone now with a few haul roads still passable. I do believe that this government has not been up front with the hunting community on the future of hunting in Alberta and all other recreational activity on public land as of late. I have Grand Children to.

[DMaterelli]

Originally Posted by slickwilly

Willmore is a Wildland Provincial Park, as it the majority of the new Castle. The fact that there is hunting allowed in the portion of the Castle that is a true PP is a step forward in my opinion.

Why did they not designate the entire area a Wildland Park?

And what are the differences in the designation?

I will help you out, Provincial Parks allow commercial and urban developments in their designation. Wildland Parks do not.

If you want to get behind "protecting the landscape" fine, but use some common sense. This is being sold as protecting the headwaters, which I can get behind. But when they made a third of the land mass of the park into a PP, I started to research it a bit more.

Check out the draft plan. They include hunting, but don't mention specific details. Other than you will need a discharge permit, and you will not be allowed to field dress your game in the Provincial Park.

Phone the local biologist and see what he says in regards to the new proposed Park. He is going to be the guy that delivers the tags (management) of this newly created zone. I have spoken with him and I get the impression this is not going to be anything other than a loss of hunting opportunity. I would look to how Cypress manages the hunt in that PP (here is another hint - it only allows elk hunting and it is draw).

Also pay close attention to what the government is saying in regards to the jobs and eco-tourism they are looking at creating. I am not okay with demonizing OHV guys, and then replacing them with hordes or urban and foreign hikers. Do you think other land use (hunting, ranching) will mesh with these guys down the road?

[DMaterelli]

[QUOTE=alberta_bha;3522747]

Your interpretation of "reading between the lines" of the Y2Y policy is interesting, but I don't agree with what you are hypothesizing. It may surprise you that Y2Y management are hunters and anglers as well, but, regardless, whether you agree with Y2Y and their policies has very little bearing on this conversation.

It actually has quite a bit to do with this conversation as there are more groups supporting Y2Y that would like to see a end to the hunting community.

If the opinion is that this hunting/angling group should not associate with any conservation group, then I don't agree with you. There is much progress to be made in protecting the wilderness that we all have come to cherish, and enjoy, while working alongside other groups that are just as dedicated to conservation, perhaps for different reasons, but for the same result.

The hunting community has to be careful which conservation groups it endorses, because some are not reciprocal in their consideration for each groups best interest. Progress can be made working with other conservation groups yes, but as hunters we need to always keep our guard up to those who try to leverage our rights.

We are demonstrating that hunters and anglers are truly conservationists at heart, as we are working towards preserving what remains of the wilderness, with the sole intent of passing it, and our hunting/fishing traditions, to the next generations, much like what our forefathers did.

I think the real hunting and fishing organization AFGA, with a active membership of 20 thousand members does a great job of this. They have protected land, worked on easements and are constantly active with a competent staff and dedicated volunteer network of folks trying to push conservation and the protection of hunting areas. And they recognize the threats in this Park designation and were outspoken against it. I applaud them for that. So far from the BHA group in Alberta I see a incestuous group of quad haters, willingly willing to lay down and take it for a little short term gain.

I would hope that, at the very least, you would agree that wildlife management and habitat conservation would be something that needs to be supported, while maintaining our shared traditional activities of hunting/angling. This is what the Alberta BHA members align with, and support, as an independent chapter.

So does the AFGA. Not one person representing the AFGA sat at that table not agreeing with mitigating OHV activity for the benefit of the watershed.

Again, the invitation for a pint is always open to all, as I find that it is far more effective venue when discussing things.[

/QUOTE]
I have seen enough to know I likely wouldn't mix well with you guys.

And I don't think I would enjoy lemon raspberry kolsch anyway...

[boah]

After doing a little research, I can't see me joining this group. I don't believe they are looking out for the best interest of all hunters. I find that I don't agree with some of the supporters thoughts on here. ANY group that supports y2y in any way will not get any support from me.

[Klondike]

Who were the NDP listening to when they were making their decision to ban quads, ATVs, snow mobiles, dirt bikes - basically all motorized fun - from the New Castle Wilderness Park?

We know it wasn’t the people who actually use the park. They were kicked out.

Then who?

One group that has the ear of the NDP is the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, or Y2Y.

But why should we care about Y2Y? They’re just some well-meaning grassroots conservationist group like your local hunting and angling association, right?

That’s what the Calgary Herald and the rest of the mainstream media calls them: a conservation group, but Y2Y is exactly the opposite.

They aren’t grassroots. Instead, they’re one of those foreign-funded American meddlers in Canadian politics that has bigger plans for Canada than just having the government expel hundreds of outdoorsy types from the public lands they use near the Crowsnest Pass.

Y2Y says it wants an “interconnected system of wild lands and waters stretching from Yellowstone to Yukon, harmonizing the needs of people with those of nature”.

Basically they want to turn all the Rockies into a park.

Look, everyone likes clean water and wants to protect animal habitat, but that’s how organizations like Y2Y fool you. It’s never really about what they say it’s about.

Watch my video to see what Y2Y’s real motivations are and where they get their money from. Some of it is from you!

All of this is why it’s so important to push back against Y2Y and their foreign plans for Alberta public lands. We can't just give them a win. Maybe you don't camp or don't have a quad or a snowmobile but a win for Y2Y now, especially with a friendly provincial government, is just going to embolden them.

This isn't going to stop at your neighbour’s RV. Y2Y wants Alberta jobs kicked out of the Rockies too

https://www.therebel.media/_conserva...try_here_s_how

[alpineguy]

Hunting existed long before ATV's and I truly believe it will exist long after.
I personally don't see shutting down motorized vehicle access as an attack on hunting as much as it is an effort to curb the ground disturbance created from irresponsible users. The whole off road industry is shooting itself in the foot as I see it by producing bigger displacement engines and extremely aggressive tread patterns. I remember when trikes and quads first came out and they had little more than turf tires on them and very small displacement engines. The government has no interest in policing an activity that extends far from major roads. The user group has proven it can't police itself so the end result is a shutdown.
I own both ATV's and horses and to tell you the truth I would take a horse hunting long before I would ever take an ATV. Although the horse is a lot more work than a quad I completely enjoy the peacefulness of not hearing motors running.
A typical hunt involves using the horses to carry supplies and get to a camp spot and then hunting on foot from there.
Having said all this I am neither a supporter of the NDP or necessarily Y2Y but there needs to be changes to certain areas (but not all) of our province where ground disturbance issues exist. In no way would I want a complete ban on OHV's.
Last year we camped at the Lynx Creek campground and although that area is absolutely beautiful in many respects I was appalled at the excessive random camping, motorized vehicle use and damage that came with it. I have also hunted the Castle so I am no stranger to the area.

Just my opinion based on the experiences I have had both in the Castle and other areas of Alberta where these activities are not allowed.
If you attack my point of view I will not engage as I believe Democracy is based on varying opinions not someone's perception of how they want things to be.........something that is not always recognized on this Forum.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Gray Wolf

So we have to import the workings of a group from a foreign country, to address our 'Canadian' backcountry concerns?!

FAIL!

So ditto for Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, etc.?

[DMaterelli]

Originally Posted by alpineguy

Hunting existed long before ATV's and I truly believe it will exist long after.
I personally don't see shutting down motorized vehicle access as an attack on hunting as much as it is an effort to curb the ground disturbance created from irresponsible users. The whole off road industry is shooting itself in the foot as I see it by producing bigger displacement engines and extremely aggressive tread patterns. I remember when trikes and quads first came out and they had little more than turf tires on them and very small displacement engines. The government has no interest in policing an activity that extends far from major roads. The user group has proven it can't police itself so the end result is a shutdown.
I own both ATV's and horses and to tell you the truth I would take a horse hunting long before I would ever take an ATV. Although the horse is a lot more work than a quad I completely enjoy the peacefulness of not hearing motors running.
A typical hunt involves using the horses to carry supplies and get to a camp spot and then hunting on foot from there.
Having said all this I am neither a supporter of the NDP or necessarily Y2Y but there needs to be changes to certain areas (but not all) of our province where ground disturbance issues exist. In no way would I want a complete ban on OHV's.
Last year we camped at the Lynx Creek campground and although that area is absolutely beautiful in many respects I was appalled at the excessive random camping, motorized vehicle use and damage that came with it. I have also hunted the Castle so I am no stranger to the area.

Just my opinion based on the experiences I have had both in the Castle and other areas of Alberta where these activities are not allowed.
If you attack my point of view I will not engage as I believe Democracy is based on varying opinions not someone's perception of how they want things to be.........something that is not always recognized on this Forum.

How do you view the addition of 20 million dollars to the Castle Mountain Ski hill for pavement upgrades and water service?
How would you feel about the addition of a couple of Hotels and all the associated support businesses coming to the same area?

If you camped at Lynx - its now in the new PP designation. How would you feel in 5 years if it was paved to that campground and there were urban and commercial developments there?

I am with you on the OHV crowds doing themselves a disservice. I disagree with bans - and agree with increased regulations. They regulate other activities further in (sheep hunting, fishing etc.)

And I appreciate your different opinion - that is how you get to good policy IMHO. We can agree to disagree, but you are certainly doing so in a very respectful manner. I wish the government was listening to all user groups in the same way.

There is a ability to allow all to enjoy (maybe even with heavy restrictions, some area closures and possibly licensed and time restricted use). And not all folks have a pack string or the time to get out for those types of experiences.

There are more backcountry users now than ever, and my biggest fear is we are trading one set of issues (OHV misuse) for another (exponential ecotourism catering to urban and foreign users).

[slickwilly]

Originally Posted by DMaterelli

How do you view the addition of 20 million dollars to the Castle Mountain Ski hill for pavement upgrades and water service?
How would you feel about the addition of a couple of Hotels and all the associated support businesses coming to the same area?

If you camped at Lynx - its now in the new PP designation. How would you feel in 5 years if it was paved to that campground and there were urban and commercial developments there?

I am with you on the OHV crowds doing themselves a disservice. I disagree with bans - and agree with increased regulations. They regulate other activities further in (sheep hunting, fishing etc.)

And I appreciate your different opinion - that is how you get to good policy IMHO. We can agree to disagree, but you are certainly doing so in a very respectful manner. I wish the government was listening to all user groups in the same way.

There is a ability to allow all to enjoy (maybe even with heavy restrictions, some area closures and possibly licensed and time restricted use). And not all folks have a pack string or the time to get out for those types of experiences.

There are more backcountry users now than ever, and my biggest fear is we are trading one set of issues (OHV misuse) for another (exponential ecotourism catering to urban and foreign users).

These are some good points. With a PP designation, there will definitely be some increased development and access by recreational users. But, I would argue that these aren't incompatible with my desire for preserved wild spaces. Most parks have a small developed area with a larger, less accessed area that is untouched by typical summer tourist types. These crowds typically visit in the summer, and aren't likely to have a lot of overlap with hunting seasons.

Having sites developed for access by tourists makes them more valuable as wilderness and, I feel, makes them more likely to be preserved long-term.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by slickwilly

These are some good points. With a PP designation, there will definitely be some increased development and access by recreational users. But, I would argue that these aren't incompatible with my desire for preserved wild spaces. Most parks have a small developed area with a larger, less accessed area that is untouched by typical summer tourist types. These crowds typically visit in the summer, and aren't likely to have a lot of overlap with hunting seasons.

Having sites developed for access by tourists makes them more valuable as wilderness and, I feel, makes them more likely to be preserved long-term.

What you are not understanding is the existing trail system affects less than 1% of the area in question. The wilderness is already wilderness. We don't need commercial developments to obtain wilderness.

[boah]

Originally Posted by Newview01

What you are not understanding is the existing trail system affects less than 1% of the area in question. The wilderness is already wilderness. We don't need commercial developments to obtain wilderness.

Not only are they taking away atv's. They are also taking away random camping. I know plenty of seniors who thoroughly enjoy the outdoors the way it is now. How are they expected to hike in 10-20 miles to enjoy the same thing????
I will gaurantee they won't enjoy commercial development, if they did, they would be going to Banff!!

[DMaterelli]

Originally Posted by slickwilly

These are some good points. With a PP designation, there will definitely be some increased development and access by recreational users. But, I would argue that these aren't incompatible with my desire for preserved wild spaces. Most parks have a small developed area with a larger, less accessed area that is untouched by typical summer tourist types. These crowds typically visit in the summer, and aren't likely to have a lot of overlap with hunting seasons.

Having sites developed for access by tourists makes them more valuable as wilderness and, I feel, makes them more likely to be preserved long-term.

Development does not equate to preservation, but rather a exchange of one land use to another. And try to think 5 , 10 and 20 years in the future. What would a huge increase in foot traffic do? I don't have the answers, but there is a fair amount of literature out there to suggest our National Parks are being "Loved to death". In my mind that means a simple exchange of issues relating to pressure.

No overlap in hunting seasons? How much time have you spent in the areas that have similar regulations now? I am surprised at just how much overlap there is, nothing more surprising (and annoying) than putting a sneak on a Ram to be greeted by a group of loud foreign hikers. Even less appealing to have to defend my activity (hunting) to them considering I live here and they want to tell me how it shouldn't be allowed.

If they said this was important enough to make a Wildland Park out of the entire area I would have a lot less problems with it. I would also applaud any attempt to retain all different types of land use - even with very severe restrictions.

And the really sad part in this is once it is in this designation the chances of it ever coming out are slim. So I really hope all the folks pushing behind it have done all of the research to ensure it doesn't become another Canmore ****e show. So far most of what I hear is folks who have really only thought about what is written in the draft - which is good for 25 months. What happens with new governments, especially if they get the bug to really develop things. The table has been set now.

I don't know why we have such a problem leaving wildernes as wilderness.

[Pekan]

Originally Posted by Dr Death

They (BHA) had a write up in our local (Pincher Creek) paper commending the government and the castle parks plan. They state they're happy to see ohv's banished from the area. Fine to have that opinion, however, they are dreaming if they think there will actually be a hunt for very long in the provincial park portion. The government tossed a bone. BHA grabbed it and seem to think usiness as usual just no quads. Once it rolls into the Alberta parks jurisdiction hunting will be severely restricted if not eliminated.

Wildland privincial parks exist in other mountain wmu's. And they still allow hunting. The concept is older than the ndp government. Not sure if I buy the threat that a hunting ban is next. I like what I've heard about BHA in the states.

[boah]

Originally Posted by Pekan

Wildland privincial parks exist in other mountain wmu's. And they still allow hunting. The concept is older than the ndp government. Not sure if I buy the threat that a hunting ban is next. I like what I've heard about BHA in the states.

They are making 2 distinctly different types of parks in the Castle area. One is wildland, the other is PROVINCIAL PARK.

[boah]

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/ba..._chapter_board

nobody with tunnel vision in this group.....

[Pekan]

I don't understand how the existence of this group in Alberta is seen as such a negative thing. I want more people at the negotiating table who represent the interests of Hunters and fishers. If you've got AFGA sitting at the table, wouldn't you want another pro hunting entity sitting beside them? Compared to a mountain biking organization or a bird watching club, or an anti hunting group, BHA and AFGA would be agreeing more than they disagree.
so I see that as two voices rather than one.

And they're just one voice. They haven't been chosen by the government to represent the views of all hunters.

I understand that the Castle is near and dear to the hearts of many users, but it's obvious that it will be undergoing significant changes with or without BHA's involvement. They've been in Alberta for 2 months after all.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Pekan

I don't understand how the existence of this group in Alberta is seen as such a negative thing. I want more people at the negotiating table who represent the interests of Hunters and fishers. If you've got AFGA sitting at the table, wouldn't you want another pro hunting entity sitting beside them? Compared to a mountain biking organization or a bird watching club, or an anti hunting group, BHA and AFGA would be agreeing more than they disagree.
so I see that as two voices rather than one.

And they're just one voice. They haven't been chosen by the government to represent the views of all hunters.

I understand that the Castle is near and dear to the hearts of many users, but it's obvious that it will be undergoing significant changes with or without BHA's involvement. They've been in Alberta for 2 months after all.

BHA Alberta is a detriment because it promotes the rights of one group of hunters over another.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Newview01

BHA Alberta is a detriment because it promotes the rights of one group of hunters over another.

Is OHV use is a right when hunting or fishing? Why? Lobbying for foot access is a no brainer. Lobbying for horse access brings some issues to the table. Lobbying for OHV access brings a whole ton of issues to that table. I would rather have hunting access to an area than none at all. The Willmore is a perfect example of no motorized access, and the Goat an example of no hunting/fishing at all. I'd rather have the Willmore situation.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by boah

nobody with tunnel vision in this group.....

Ya right, thanks for the laugh

[Pekan]

Originally Posted by Newview01

BHA Alberta is a detriment because it promotes the rights of one group of hunters over another.

Go to any Public Land Use Zone in Southern Alberta on the Tuesday after May long weekend. You'll see EXACTLY why the general public doesn't give two hoots about what OHV users want. OHV users, rightly or wrongly get tarred with the same brush as the random camping bush party people.
By that I mean the garbage, destruction, vandalism, and burned out trailers left behind. You can dispute what I'm saying but the mess left behind speaks for itself.
Seems funny that the blame for the OHV ban goes to Y2Y and some conspiracy, rather than look at the ban as a result of the abuse and disrespect of Alberta's public lands by a very vocal minority of land users.

That's why I don't go along with the whole idea of total solidarity at all costs under any circumstances.

[boah]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

Ya right, thanks for the laugh

Sorry, forgot to add a sarcasm smilie

[Bigstone]

Van Tighem supports them so that's enough for me. He believes if you can't walk stay home period. Elitist if there ever was one.

[waterninja]

BHA? Is there no end to the # of organizations that are out there. You'd think some would join together to have a stronger voice.
Just let me know where to send my money.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Pekan

Go to any Public Land Use Zone in Southern Alberta on the Tuesday after May long weekend. You'll see EXACTLY why the general public doesn't give two hoots about what OHV users want. OHV users, rightly or wrongly get tarred with the same brush as the random camping bush party people.
By that I mean the garbage, destruction, vandalism, and burned out trailers left behind. You can dispute what I'm saying but the mess left behind speaks for itself.
Seems funny that the blame for the OHV ban goes to Y2Y and some conspiracy, rather than look at the ban as a result of the abuse and disrespect of Alberta's public lands by a very vocal minority of land users.

That's why I don't go along with the whole idea of total solidarity at all costs under any circumstances.

Where is the enforcement? We shouldn't have a government who complains about the issue but refuses to enforce it. I agree, a portion of the OHV community brings it on themselves, but for those who say they should self-police, that is hopeless.

A government committed to allowing access for all would be ideal, and would be sustainable through enforcement.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Where is the enforcement? We shouldn't have a government who complains about the issue but refuses to enforce it. I agree, a portion of the OHV community brings it on themselves, but for those who say they should self-police, that is hopeless.

A government committed to allowing access for all would be ideal, and would be sustainable through enforcement.

So the OHV guys can't police themselves, but the gov. should police it. Where are these resources going to come from. It's a huge area, impossible to police effectively, the best way to save the area will happen. I'm good with that. At least the next few generations will have something. One of the few things the NDP has done right.