ÜberFly Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 It's a sad sad state of affairs, that's for sure!! P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Heads up to all potential protesters; Please be cautious around the Cat trackhoe, the operator has always wanted to see how far he can punt a Prius with a 245CL, it's #3 on his bucket list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryfly Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 1) Taco...."bucket list. " HA HA HA! Trackhoe--bucket list. Good one Taco. 2) LastBoyScout. " Harvest responsibly or let it burn. " Amen to that. Well said. These species need to be renewed and they create a huge fire hazard if they get too old. Fires perform a role in Alberta's forests yet if we keep putting out the fires then the only chance at "renewal" is by managed harvest, as distasteful as some feel this is. If NIMBY applies to logging (in my back yard). Then maybe NIMBY should also apply to fire suppression (in my backyard), eh? 3) Rickr. Well said. The only problem is at some time the trees have to go because they have a finite life span. Nature's way was fire. As LastBoyScout said (I think this is what he meant), trees need to be harvested responsibly or we stop putting out fires and let fires take their natural course. Fire suppression is ridiculously expensive and damaging, yet when there are houses in the way people get more than a little concerned. One wonders how many house/cabin/cottage owners in the Pass area, Twin Butte, Beauvais Lake, Beaver Mines areas will be out protesting. And then expect tax payers to put out fires that threaten their precious recreational (and permanent) properties? Touchy subject and there is little middle ground here. The answer is not as simple as banning forestry in someone's backyard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastBoyScout Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 You read me correctly DryFly. In regards to fire suppression I might suggest an ounce of prevention, for the cost of fighting a single wild fire we could cut wide fire breaks around many of our forest bound towns and enable fire crews to concentrate on saving communities rather than spending big money tearing up the forest to save the forest. It is always after the fact we look at these types of measures. i understand the logging will begin east of hwy 774 and north of beaver Mines Lake so the only major drain effected now will be Beaver Mines Creek. We'll have to keep both eyes on them to see how they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 One thing I'll add as far as "responsible" forest management, i.e., (true) selective logging is that would be SUPER expensive and be counter productive - and is why clear cutting is used - it's cheaper! WAYYYYYY cheaper.... Not sure if there is a happy medium. I would just hope that they put in place buffer zones (real buffer zones) as to limit erosion... I guess time will tell!! <sigh> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonvilly Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Not willing to beat a deadhorse to death with my opinion that the Castle area should be left alone but, I would also like to throw these points into the gamut of responses. Spray lakes will spend absolutely no money in the Castle area, they will not hire people from there, they will not purchase fuel from there, products will not be processed there. Nothing will be spent on or in this community. Everything will come from the Cochrane area shop or elsewhere. They will only take...nothing will be given back. Heck they own the Atlas road leading to the old Atlas mill and they dont want to be held responsible for the upkeep of road and bridges. Instead they would rather have the government take it over, meaning the tax payers in the castle area would be paying for the upkeep of the road that Spray trucks on. Now that is slap in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Not willing to beat a deadhorse to death with my opinion that the Castle area should be left alone but, I would also like to throw these points into the gamut of responses. Spray lakes will spend absolutely no money in the Castle area, they will not hire people from there, they will not purchase fuel from there, products will not be processed there. Nothing will be spent on or in this community. Everything will come from the Cochrane area shop or elsewhere. They will only take...nothing will be given back. Heck they own the Atlas road leading to the old Atlas mill and they dont want to be held responsible for the upkeep of road and bridges. Instead they would rather have the government take it over, meaning the tax payers in the castle area would be paying for the upkeep of the road that Spray trucks on. Now that is slap in the face. To be fair and clear, the Atlas road is owned by SRD (it is on crown land). It was managed by Atlas Lumber and the management was taken over by SLS when they bought Atlas. Their (SLS) license says they HAVE to reclaim the road when done with the logging. SRD will not let them reclaim the road because of local recreational users and DFO will not let them take out the crossing structures and leave the banks to be destroyed by OHV use. SLS is stuck- damned if they do, damned if they don't. Why should SLS continue to be responsible and pay for a road that they don't own or use, and even more so, why should they be liable? That road is a mess (environmental-wise) and may will require enforcement action from regulators to fix it properly (or better yet, to remove it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lad Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 "One wonders how many house/cabin/cottage owners in the Pass area, Twin Butte, Beauvais Lake, Beaver Mines areas will be out protesting. And then expect tax payers to put out fires that threaten their precious recreational (and permanent) properties? " As for full time residents in the Pass protesting. I don't think you will find one. There are quite a few people from the Pass that directly or indirectly benefit from logging. The protestors are a form of entertainment for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 "One wonders how many house/cabin/cottage owners in the Pass area, Twin Butte, Beauvais Lake, Beaver Mines areas will be out protesting. And then expect tax payers to put out fires that threaten their precious recreational (and permanent) properties? " As for full time residents in the Pass protesting. I don't think you will find one. There are quite a few people from the Pass that directly or indirectly benefit from logging. The protestors are a form of entertainment for us. Short of the very few SLS employees in the pass, who benefits for this and how? And I'm seriously asking, I'd like some sort of cost breakdown- pro/con type of argument (like to have an informed opinion). Most of my family (Beaver Mines area) are on the fence. They've been told it will improve grazing access and reduce fire loads, but it will also increase OHV access which is the largest cause of fires and the biggest disturbance to grazing. I know many of the SLS guys and they will try to do a good job, but that is based on the best knowledge present... not the best scientific knowledge nor the precautionary approach which should be followed under such uncertain circumstances. This is a case of NIMBY but it is also more than that. Water from the Castle supplies the bulk of the water to the Oldman River. It provides for the ultimate fishing experiences in Alberta. The area has some of the best hunting, birding, some of the coolest rare plants, some of the most scenic viewscapes. It has a possibility of bringing in millions in tourism... which will be completely lost, a missed revenue op for all the local residents. But whatever... even if you question, you are typically labelled as a socialist pinko hippy that shouldn't use fuel or wear polyester clothes. There is no sustainable use-less view, only pro a Alberta industry view or a commie environmentalist view. But now I'm ranting... After this SLS, is moving their cut into the Porkies. There are some pretty sensitive streams in there... but a lot of areas that could use cleaning up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lad Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 "This is a case of NIMBY but it is also more than that. Water from the Castle supplies the bulk of the water to the Oldman River. It provides for the ultimate fishing experiences in Alberta. The area has some of the best hunting, birding, some of the coolest rare plants, some of the most scenic viewscapes. It has a possibility of bringing in millions in tourism... which will be completely lost, a missed revenue op for all the local residents." I do underatand your concern and every industry in the province needs to be scrutinized. I would be much more concerned if we were turning the area into a park. The area currently does bring millions in tourism into the area. I think you believing that it will be completely lost is grossly over stated. How many people who currently venture into this back country will stop after logging ? Will you ? I would bet it is just as busy with fisherman, campers, and hikers etc as it has in years past. I would actually believe myself that in the future it will be even busier than it has been in the past with or without logging. I have not seen an area around S.W. Alberta that has slowed down to logging or forest fires yet. Go down to the heart of the forest fires or where there has been logging for the last few decades and see if there is any less recreational use of the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryH Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 ................... I would be much more concerned if we were turning the area into a park. .................. Wow, not sure why you say that. From my observation of "recreation" activities both north and south of the Crowsnest Pass, things are totally out of control -- read random camping, irrespnsible OHV use etc. The best thing that could happen in my view would be to turn the Castle area back to a park. At least then, there would be some control over how the place is used. Oh, and it's not just a handful of bad quadders -- it's just too many people doing anything they want without anyone at a higher level (i.e. SRD) doing anything to protect things. Right now all we have is a free for all. Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 X2!!!!!!!! Wow, not sure why you say that. From my observation of "recreation" activities both north and south of the Crowsnest Pass, things are totally out of control -- read random camping, irrespnsible OHV use etc. The best thing that could happen in my view would be to turn the Castle area back to a park. At least then, there would be some control over how the place is used. Oh, and it's not just a handful of bad quadders -- it's just too many people doing anything they want without anyone at a higher level (i.e. SRD) doing anything to protect things. Right now all we have is a free for all. Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lad Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Turning it into a federal park would limit fishing and hunting. If the ATV's were out of there i would not be to concerned. Access is very important to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayhad Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Turning it into a federal park would limit fishing and hunting. This shouldn't be an issue, for some reason the vast majority of anglers are all for conservation UNTIL our angling opportunties are diminished. Why to do have more right to resources than other user groups? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I'm ok with that, but who said anything about a "Federal" (National) park?! Why not a Provincial Park?! Eitherway, we need to protect this area for the future! Turning it into a federal park would limit fishing and hunting. If the ATV's were out of there i would not be to concerned. Access is very important to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lad Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I'm ok with that, but who said anything about a "Federal" (National) park?! Why not a Provincial Park?! Eitherway, we need to protect this area for the future! I did. I would not like it to become a federal park. Pretty straight forward. You said why not a provincial park. Why not ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lad Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 QUOTE (lad @ Jan 13 2012, 10:49 AM) * Turning it into a federal park would limit fishing and hunting. "This shouldn't be an issue, for some reason the vast majority of anglers are all for conservation UNTIL our angling opportunties are diminished. Why to do have more right to resources than other user groups?" I "think" I understand what you were trying to say. I don't believe anybody has anymore right to the resouce's than others, including the forestry industry. I do have my preferences though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I'm in favor of either, but seeing that Waterton is already down there, I doubt that they would expand it. It is already supposed to be a protected area (provincially), but obviously that means zippity do da! I did. I would not like it to become a federal park. Pretty straight forward. You said why not a provincial park. Why not ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryfly Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Just wondering aloud how many protesters will be out Tuesday and Wednesday morning throwing themselves in front of the logging machinery. Just wondering. S'pose a few diehards will be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Folks, What is neat is that somebody gives a sweet rats ass enough to protest anything. First time I can ever recall seeing active protest in Alberta by folks from Alberta. Does this mean that Alberta is "coming of age"? Or better than that - Harpers assertion that people wanting not to screw up the environmnet are terrorists and these clowns in southern Alberta should be tossed over the nearest border. regards, Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lad Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Folks, What is neat is that somebody gives a sweet rats ass enough to protest anything. First time I can ever recall seeing active protest in Alberta by folks from Alberta. Does this mean that Alberta is "coming of age"? Or better than that - Harpers assertion that people wanting not to screw up the environmnet are terrorists and these clowns in southern Alberta should be tossed over the nearest border. regards, Don The most efficient form of protest is voting at election time. Because someone does not show up to protest does not equate to not giving a sh!t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 lad, I stand corrected. About 30>750 % vote depending on which election. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The most efficient form of protest is voting at election time. Because someone does not show up to protest does not equate to not giving a sh!t. However if people don't raise the profile of the issue by protesting, it will never hit the politicians radar.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan2 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Apparently there were enough protestors down there to stop the logging that day. Good for them, I say. The logging will not be restricted to just Beaver mines creek according to the map I saw several months ago. It will be alongside S Castle R and Castle bridge campground too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastBoyScout Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I can't say I agree with the no logging stance but I do have to say I have respect for the people out there today at -30 letting their feelings be known. Kudos but why no news papers or global tv? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.