jpinkster

You can also live stream the media from the Calgary.ca site. Begins at 9:30 http://www.calgary.ca/General/Pages/Council-and-Committee-webcasts.aspx

And the former/upcoming government needs to hear this feedback candidly and with an open mind. The knee-jerk reaction within the party right now is to get super defensive when any shade is lain on our environmental track record. It's time to grow up and realize there were a lot of things we did wrong.

Article making the rounds over the weekend: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/new-river-access-strategy-looks-to-increase-tourism-while-protecting-the-environment I won't pre-suppose the outcome, but the fact that two fiscally conservative Councillors are endorsing this is a good omen.

The Bow River Chapter of Trout Unlimited Canada offers their official position: http://bowriver.org/2017/01/27/brc-comment-on-calgary-river-access-strategy/

I was just under the impression that Minister Phillips was better at this thing than I am. I think moving OHVs out of the area is a useful first step. It's past time that we had a conversation in this province on where the most appropriate locations are for OHV use. We are greatly exceeding habitat thresholds in many places throughout the province. Something was going to have to give eventually.

Sorry for the essay. This is something I've been thinking of writing on for some time. Where politics and the environment collide... A CONVERSATION FOR CONSERVATIVE CONSERVATIONISTS The environment is easily one of the most polarizing issues in Alberta. I will speak quite candidly here and break from my conservative roots – I worry what a united conservative government could mean for Alberta’s environmental interests. To date all we hear is that the NDP Climate Leadership Plan (including the carbon tax) is horrible and we need to do everything in our power to get rid of it. Apologies to my conservative friends, but that simply isn’t good enough. I keep being told that we are not in a position to talk policy right now, those conversations are going to happen once the dust settles on the current leadership race. What worries me is what happens next. What if the conservative reaction to four years of NDP government is to abandon our environmental responsibilities altogether? I would like to think that collectively we agree this is an important issue and that thoughtful conservative policies can pave the way for stronger environmental stewardship. In November of 2015 the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) commissioned a study to find out how Albertans feel about outdoor activities and wilderness. As a lifelong Albertan, the results from this survey don’t surprise me in the least. Here are some of the highlights: - 88% of Albertans want government to set aside more wilderness where human activities are minimal. - 94% believe that wilderness areas are important because they help preserve plant and animal species. - 86% prioritize non-motorized recreation in wilderness over motorized recreation (especially topical given the recent government announcements for the Castle Provincial Park and Wilderness Area). - 83% want wilderness protected and left in their natural condition, even if these areas are never visited by, or benefit, humans. These figures are compelling, and they tell us how many Albertans feel about the environment. Albertan conservatives in particular should be sitting up and taking notice of this. The perception exists that conservatives lack credibility when it comes to environmental issues. But why is that, and how do we fix it? We are actually pretty good at these kinds of things when we put our minds to it. At the moment conservatives in this province don’t have a great relationship with environmentalists. I’ve heard numerous times that most environmental groups are simply shills for the NDP. We can’t trust these people, we shouldn’t even talk to them and we have every right to get incredibly defensive when our previous environmental track record is brought up. What an absurd way to look at the issue! We shouldn’t forget that there are many examples across Canada of conservatives doing the right thing when it comes to the environment; things that environmentalists have been very supportive of. Hell, Prime Minister Stephen Harper established 25,603 sq KM of new parks, that’s almost a 10% increase on our total park space as a country! That’s a big victory for environmentalists and a big victory for Canada. Why couldn’t we do the same thing here provincially? I believe that our movement towards more credibility on the environment begins with building bridges with environmentalists. Alberta had a Progressive Conservative government for more than four decades. We did some things well and we did some things poorly. Staying in our echo chamber and ignoring feedback from the outside does us no favours. It is time that we opened ourselves up to a peer review. We should be positively engaging with environmentalists and ask what priorities we failed on during our time in government. What priorities did we succeed on? How do they feel about alternative policies that we may be considering? The environment does not need to be a wedge issue that conservatives dare not touch. As conservatives we owe it to Albertans and to Alberta to continue being thoughtful about the environment. The Climate Leadership Plan likely won’t be the silver bullet that leads us to a golden age of environmental stewardship. I think some of the brilliant conservative minds we have in this province can come up with something better, and I think environmentalists can help.

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/phillips-protecting-castle-parks-is-an-important-step-for-future-generations Hard to disagree with anything the Minister says here, although I've never caught a bull trout on a caddis before. The wording on the phase out of OHV use is very deliberate - they are reclaiming unauthorized trails. These are trails that OHVs weren't supposed to be on in the first place. Hard to really justify how that community is so outraged by all of this.

and if you pour it down a fish's throat it stops it from bleeding!

From burning books to poisoning the well. It could be a long 4 years for our friends down south. http://www.hatchmag.com/articles/within-moments-taking-office-trump-pledges-roll-back/7714310

In most cases it isn't the fault of the journalist. A journalist will go out and write a story, someone else writes the headline. Want an example? Take a look at the difference between The Calgary Herald and The Calgary Sun. Same journalist, same exact text, very different taglines. The article itself does a good job of sticking to the facts, but the headline sensationalizes it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-climatechange-idUSKBN15906G?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social This article should really worry people. Whether we agree that climate change is man-made or not, we need this scientific data. How can we expect to have an informed discussion with meaningful outcomes without access to the facts? Government should not be making decisions based on "alternative facts". Let's stop making science the enemy here. Book burning is so medieval.

I think Don is bang on here. I thought the tagline of the article was a bit misleading. Fracking is problematic in a lot of ways, but the real issue being discussed here is how we dispose of fracking fluids. The emphasis here should be on a higher priority for safe disposal and transportation of materials. Suggesting that fracking fluid is harmful for fish is a pretty obvious point to make.

No comment.

I get your point, though I'm not sure it is realistic for all Council/Committee meetings to be outside of normal working hours. You are able to send written feedback in to City Clerks, although the submission window may be closed. Anyone interested in watching the proceedings can tune in here: http://www.calgary.ca/General/Pages/Council-and-Committee-webcasts.aspx

Take this point for what it's worth - Don't assume that Council support for a $7.66M dedication of funds over 5 years is a slam dunk, it likely won't be. It's an election year and every bit of spending approved by Council is going to come under intense scrutiny. It's up to the river access community at large to make the case loud and clear that this capital spend is both necessary and appropriate. There are lots of competing projects out there that are looking for funding. The access community needs to demonstrate that this investment has a clear return and should be made a priority.

You can plug your feedback directly in here: https://talkaep.alberta.ca/CastleManagementPlan/survey_tools/castle-provincial-park-and-castle-wildland-provincial-park-management-plan-survey

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=4615062300B72-B7DC-7610-C46E08357654B8F9 This is really great news. I'm pleased that the government is moving to phase out OHV use in this sensitive area. We do need to be careful about how these OHV users get phased out. If they are entirely unable to use the Castle area, the destruction may be transferred to other nearby areas. We need to specify appropriate areas for OHV use with the appropriate infrastructure and consider similar frameworks for the Oldman, Ghost and Waiperous watersheds.

I think the one positive is that this keeps getting more and more attention. I can see public pressure get to a point where CP/CN are compelled to act.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/highway-crossings-credited-for-decline-in-national-park-wildlife-deaths Ultimately this is a good news story. Smart investments are keeping the connectivity of habitat and removing conflict points with wildlife. I do find the comments from the Western Transportation Institute biologist concerning. He states, "really, we're talking about motorist safety". With respect, no we aren't. We are talking about finding ways to protect wildlife in some of our most sensitive areas. The focal point is removing those conflict points to ensure less wildlife are slaughtered on the highway. The fact that motorists are safer is a positive side-effect, but it shouldn't be the intended focus.

I'd point out that there are quite a few of us that are already doing this.

While I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback, there was one part of the survey that drove me nuts. When they pose the question about unified regulations, you have to respond whether you agree or not. If you agree, they let you answer more specific questions and even add comments. If you do not agree, the survey ends. I initially had clicked no because I do not believe the entire Bow should be open all year round (protection for spawning, etc). I had to double back and click 'yes' and than double back to provide feedback on specific aspects of unified regulations that I didn't like.

As fishteck said...fantastic idea to get involved and have your voice heard. Just a bit of inside baseball for everyone. I've seen plenty of examples where QUANTITY over QUALITY can actually diminish the effectiveness of advocacy. 50 people coming up at committee and essentially saying the same thing can make these meetings time consuming, costly and tiresome. With that being said, if you have a unique angle or think you can add some real value to the discussion, this is your opportunity. Proponents (or opponents for that matter) are also able to make written submissions to be included on the public record. These submissions are made a part of the report for the review of members of Council. I'll have a chat with fishteck later and give him some more details. Hopefully the advocacy effort can be really focused and effective come February 1!

This was a really fascinating read: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-awesome-price-we-pay-for-road-de-icing-melting-cars-collapsing-bridges-billions-in-damage There is a broader economic dilemma we face when it comes to better stewardship. Often times the least desirable solutions from a societal perspective end up being the most cost effective (unless you consider the long term/social costs). Until innovation can catch up and make more sustainable solutions cost effective, it is unlikely behaviour will change... ...unless of course measures are taken to factor societal costs into the price of the commodity (hey, where else is that happening?).

The FD is being consulted at every point of this process. They have direct input into what access points are considered and where we go next. My understanding is that the 17th Ave launch doesn't allow for more than one boat to launch at a time. If there was an emergency situation and FD needed to get on the river, they may be tied up with someone on the launch. A double wide launch would alleviate many of the FD concerns. The parking situation and strain on the adjacent community are also some really big concerns down at 17th.

The one thing that needs to be emphasized like crazy is that this document is a draft. It is still subject to change based on feedback and feasibility. A little refresher on how City Hall works - Items come through a Standing Policy Committee first. The public is welcome to speak on any item at an SPC meeting. I expect that CRUA and some other folks from the river access community will want to be present and even give a presentation to the committee. One of the co-signers of the original Notice of Motion for the River Access Strategy is the Chair of the SPC this will report to. The report will be accompanied by a series of recommendations from administration. The recommendations can vary from requests for funding to increased study scope to asking for direction from Council. The report will come before Council after it goes through Committee. At Council the item is not open for a public hearing. If the item passes unanimously through committee, it will go on the consent agenda at Council. If Council feels the topic is non-controversial or are content with the recommendations, the item is passed without further debate or discussion. If a member of Council wants to discuss further, they ask that it is pulled from the consent agenda and put into the regular order of business. Once the item is passed by Council, it is accepted as a clear directive for administration. Long story short on all of this - you all have lots of opportunities to be involved in the months ahead.