wingshooter Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 [/img] Heaven forbid it will look like this in 10 years, the fish will still be there, the wildlife will still be there. The city of Calgary looks so different than it did 20 years ago, oh no change will get us. Get over it! The landscape looked much different 100 years ago too do you think the settlers had a protest when the trees re-colonated the foothills and prairies? Go onto Glenbows archives and see what this area looked like back then to get some prospective. I will be pulling out huge bulls from the Castle as the rest of you bleeding hearts cry yourselves to sleep next summer. Just saying.................. Quote
lad Posted January 18, 2012 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? Just to cold out for the media and/or really is not that newsworthy in their eyes. Right or wrong the Castle will be logged so the story is destined as "filler" for the media until someone does something really stupid. Quote
LastBoyScout Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 May be call it Occupy Bow/Crow to get noticed. Quote
ÜberFly Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 That photo is about 20+ years growth!! Just sayin! P [/img] Heaven forbid it will look like this in 10 years, the fish will still be there, the wildlife will still be there. The city of Calgary looks so different than it did 20 years ago, oh no change will get us. Get over it! The landscape looked much different 100 years ago too do you think the settlers had a protest when the trees re-colonated the foothills and prairies? Go onto Glenbows archives and see what this area looked like back then to get some prospective. I will be pulling out huge bulls from the Castle as the rest of you bleeding hearts cry yourselves to sleep next summer. Just saying.................. Quote
wingshooter Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 That photo is about 20+ years growth!! Just sayin! P 10 years, 15 years or 20 years trees seem to grow back. Legislated forest regeneration for this area will ensure there will be trees to cut down in 90 years again or not. Incrimental growth for this area of the province will out do the high elevation white spruce and subalpine fir ecotype in the before mentioned picture....my bad. Lodgepole pine can grow 40 cm a year if the conditons allow if the range maggots (cows) don't browse them or get trampled by flower sniffers and OHV users. Quote
dryfly Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Now !is most disturbing. Tree huggers having a wailing orgasmic protest. Idiots. The Castle protest is short-sighted. Trees will grown back and reforestation is mandated. Properly managed forest harvest is preferable to forest fires and as noted previously the dominant species in our forest are short-lived and become fire hazards as they age. Yet we continue to put out forest fires (as often as not) to save cabin owners...some of whom are out protesting against logging. They don't want logging but want taxpayers to put out fires that will burn their houses! Logging is temporarily destructive for sure and can be massive....like the current Castle logging. But it is hypocritical for someone who has cut down trees to build their dream retirement wood-framed home to protest against logging! Check out the Mountain Legacy website for an eye opener. It can be a bit fussy to get around. Go here for sure. The points being: -- forests recover -- in some mountain regions there are MORE trees in today than 100 years ago...(where there are before-and-after photos) The examples below compare "today" with 1913-1914 ... this is "Isolated Mtn" somewhere in SW Alberta..maybe LastBoyScout or Lad can tell us where... See here, here , here ,here and here for examples...some recently logged and some not... Note particularly ... Where there has been no recent logging see how much more lush today's forest areas are compared to 100 years ago. Ripe for a fire soon..at least sometime in a few decades of not logged or (ironically) burned? Okay, now go find the City of Calgary on Google Earth. Compare today's cancerous growth with that of 100 years ago. Which has more chance of being regenerated to a natural state? A city or a logged forest? Stay warm ... Clive Quote
ÜberFly Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Clive, I fully consede that this area will be logged no matter what, but your point (and wingshooters) that the forest will grow back albeit true, is unlike warmer climates (like New Zealand, for example where their cedars (for harvest) grow to production heights in 10 years, ours will take 100+). The other 2 points I'd like to make are that there seems to be lack of foresight on the part of industry with regards to environmental damage, ie., griz habitat, water shed distruction, etc., (reducing it) and that these trees inparticular will be used for less then desirable products (pallets, fence posts and mulch). So these particular trees won't be used to build anything substancial (the trees just aren't that big - nor will they ever be). Thin out the forest, to protect the area from fire, etc., but do it sustainably - that seems to be the crux - it just ain't gonna happen (in this particular case), the area is just too sensitive!! P quote name='dryfly' date='Jan 18 2012, 08:27 AM' post='153436'] Now !is most disturbing. Tree huggers having a wailing orgasmic protest. Idiots. The Castle protest is short-sighted. Trees will grown back and reforestation is mandated. Properly managed forest harvest is preferable to forest fires and as noted previously the dominant species in our forest are short-lived and become fire hazards as they age. Yet we continue to put out forest fires (as often as not) to save cabin owners...some of whom are out protesting against logging. They don't want logging but want taxpayers to put out fires that will burn their houses! Logging is temporarily destructive for sure and can be massive....like the current Castle logging. But it is hypocritical for someone who has cut down trees to build their dream retirement wood-framed home to protest against logging! Check out the Mountain Legacy website for an eye opener. It can be a bit fussy to get around. Go here for sure. The points being: -- forests recover -- in some mountain regions there are MORE trees in today than 100 years ago...(where there are before-and-after photos) The examples below compare "today" with 1913-1914 ... this is "Isolated Mtn" somewhere in SW Alberta..maybe LastBoyScout or Lad can tell us where... See here, here , here ,here and here for examples...some recently logged and some not... Note particularly ... Where there has been no recent logging see how much more lush today's forest areas are compared to 100 years ago. Ripe for a fire soon..at least sometime in a few decades of not logged or (ironically) burned? Okay, now go find the City of Calgary on Google Earth. Compare today's cancerous growth with that of 100 years ago. Which has more chance of being regenerated to a natural state? A city or a logged forest? Stay warm ... Clive Quote
lad Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Pictures of the past that i have seen have much less forested areas. Even the CNP valley was very sparse compared to now. Hardly a tree around Hillcrest. Before settlement to this area a forest fire would strike but would not consume so many hectares because of being so sparse. The land had a much more varied age of trees . Now we have so much forestry that has a small variation in age. The logging is the only improvement on that if we suppress natural fires. If we stop logging we also must stop fighting forest fires. Why are people so up in arms about the Castle being forested ? Because the place they call home is a ecological nightmare ? There were Grizzlies once where you lived but that does not count ? Concern about the rivers here but no one is protesting the thousands of km's of irrigation canal's that are becoming in the name of efficiency wastelands east and south of Calgary. As far as people whining about their cabins being burnt down, tuff luck ! Evaluating logging by the intended use of the end product (i.e. fence posts or pallets) is just not good reasoning. Why don't these protesters go to Spray lakes office in Cochrane and protest ? Just about every problem we face on planet earth is because of our own presence. If you really really want to benefit the Castle don't ever go back there. If you are concerned about the grizzlies for heaven's sake don't fish, you are competing with them. Disclaimer- These are opinions of mine and i do not expect to see anything but a increase in the human footprint down this way forever. That's what i expect. You can't have it both ways, you are part of the problem or the solution. Me i am part of the problem, see you on the river ! My biggest concern is totally selfish- Restricted access is going to be the biggest problem for the future of all us who are causing the problems. Quote
ÜberFly Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I think that is a VERY important point and one that is crucial to this area (and argument/discussion)!! We've devistated the grizzlies "natural" range so much that this is one of the only areas left (natural or not) for them to live! I won't go into detail on how they are an indicator species, etc., but if we don't protect their "range" in the Crowsnest, what will happen? You say that they will adapt... Not so sure about that as we have encroached so much on their natural range we haven't really left them a pot (or should I say plot) to piss in!! Anyway, I'll be the 1st to restrict my access to the area in order to protect them, but that's all or none - restrict the logging and I'll restrict my useage (you can hold me too that)!!!! I can guarantee you that my footprint will be 1000% less then theirs!! P There were Grizzlies once where you lived but that does not count ? Quote
lad Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I think that is a VERY important point and one that is crucial to this area (and argument/discussion)!! We've devistated the grizzlies "natural" range so much that this is one of the only areas left (natural or not) for them to live! I won't go into detail on how they are an indicator species, etc., but if we don't protect their "range" in the Crowsnest, what will happen? You say that they will adapt... Not so sure about that as we have encroached so much on their natural range we haven't really left them a pot (or should I say plot) to piss in!! Anyway, I'll be the 1st to restrict my access to the area in order to protect them, but that's all or none - restrict the logging and I'll restrict my useage (you can hold me too that)!!!! I can guarantee you that my footprint will be 1000% less then theirs!! P Your input is very valued Uberfly and in no means am i directing anything at you. I am not that concerned with the grizzlies as i believe there are many more out there than accounted for. I tend to be much more concerned in the last few years about the grizzly's being accustomed to masses of people in their back yard and losing their fear of us. I also believe we need to re-open the hunting season for them, but that's just another can of worms. They are a unique species for sure as they are an easy picture to paste on the images of saving the area. It is marketing to heart strings. Same as the wolves but they can't use them to much any more after shooting them out of helicopters. An area that is logged will support a much more diverse and healthy ecosystem, it just isn't that pretty in the first few years. As for restricting logging, it is restricted. Spray lakes would rather be logging in Banff than the Castle area. If your concern is just Grizzlies, relax they are doing fine. My biggest concern is not using the renewable natural resources, it is the garbage that we manufacture. You can Guarantee your usage will be 1000 % less than theirs and i agree with that if its only you. That just is not reality though. Spray lakes will come in and leave and their footprint will be exactly that big. You me and a hundred thousand others will always be there creating a large market that uses non renewable resources with tons of garbage as a by product only minimalizing our own little impact. What if Spray Lakes does the math and starts pointing out these things and says "Our foot print is smaller than theirs". I do understand what you are saying but you can't talk about your footprint being 1000 % less . Your footprint is a collective footprint that is by a group who utilizes the Castle in the same manner- humans. Our footprint is much larger than the loggers footprint and we do a disproportionate amount of rehabilitation where we walk. You personally may be the ideal outdoorsman/fisherman that we could all use a lesson from but unfortunately our "group" has some real pukes. Quote
ÜberFly Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Yeah I won't open that can of worms, re: hunting grizzlies, as I personally believe the science and hold the exact opposite (and then some) opinion as you (which is ok, as your opinion/belief is ok)... That being said, I agree with you that "our" group (though I wouldn't place "myself" in that same group, per se , but I do understand what you mean, "has some real pukes"!! P Your input is very valued Uberfly and in no means am i directing anything at you. I am not that concerned with the grizzlies as i believe there are many more out there than accounted for. I tend to be much more concerned in the last few years about the grizzly's being accustomed to masses of people in their back yard and losing their fear of us. I also believe we need to re-open the hunting season for them, but that's just another can of worms. They are a unique species for sure as they are an easy picture to paste on the images of saving the area. It is marketing to heart strings. Same as the wolves but they can't use them to much any more after shooting them out of helicopters. An area that is logged will support a much more diverse and healthy ecosystem, it just isn't that pretty in the first few years. As for restricting logging, it is restricted. Spray lakes would rather be logging in Banff than the Castle area. If your concern is just Grizzlies, relax they are doing fine. My biggest concern is not using the renewable natural resources, it is the garbage that we manufacture. You can Guarantee your usage will be 1000 % less than theirs and i agree with that if its only you. That just is not reality though. Spray lakes will come in and leave and their footprint will be exactly that big. You me and a hundred thousand others will always be there creating a large market that uses non renewable resources with tons of garbage as a by product only minimalizing our own little impact. What if Spray Lakes does the math and starts pointing out these things and says "Our foot print is smaller than theirs". I do understand what you are saying but you can't talk about your footprint being 1000 % less . Your footprint is a collective footprint that is by a group who utilizes the Castle in the same manner- humans. Our footprint is much larger than the loggers footprint and we do a disproportionate amount of rehabilitation where we walk. You personally may be the ideal outdoorsman/fisherman that we could all use a lesson from but unfortunately our "group" has some real pukes. Quote
upperbowtrekker Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 On CBC today... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/stor...led-untrue.html Quote
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.