jpinkster Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgib01 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Stage 1 is reclaiming unauthorized trails. Plan is to phase them out entirely, as it states in the Castle Management Plan on the bottom of page 102... "Alberta Parks will develop a transition strategy to phase out recreational OHV use in Castle Provincial Park and Castle Wildland Provincial Park." I thought I heard the timeframe of 3-5 years mentioned as the phase out period. That's what has the OHV users of that area so upset; the transition plan appears a little fuzzy at this stage. I would tend to agree that if it is not done very thoughtfully and with replacement opportunities, that it will simply drive the destructive effects into other areas (e.g., the Crowsnest Pass), which could have significant impact on other parts of the watershed. Not an OHV user myself, but I'd say that lots of careful planning needs to be done here. As for bullies eating caddis... my understanding is that aquatics are their mainstay when younger/smaller. It's not until they become quite large that they shift to almost an exclusively predatory diet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverDoctor Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Yep I've caught Bulls on Caddis, usually like the jgib01 stated smaller fish up to 14". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningChrome Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 That's what has the OHV users of that area so upset; the transition plan appears a little fuzzy at this stage. Actually what I've been seeing in various places online is that they aren't upset about the transition plan being fuzzy, they simply don't want it to happen at all. I was just under the impression that Minister Phillips was better at this thing than I am. I don't think you were under the wrong impression Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yonderin Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 It was pretty clearly stated at the initial announcement that OHV use would be permitted. Guessing the gov't just wanted to minimize the time and degree they'd catch flak over the reversal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billie Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I have 2 18" bulls to dries. One absolutely rocketed up from the depths to a 1-1/2" bug, made me smile. The other was in pocket water. I think the battle for the Castle is over and the OHV community has lost. There will be the last gasps but I just don't see enough support from the public for their cause. I also think it is only the first area to go as the activities move elsewhere. It seems to me that they should look forward and pick another area and PROVE that their enforcement agenda will work. Suppose we take the porcupine hills (and I don't mean sacrifice it by any means) and the OHV community coordinate/cooperate with the government agencies and put effort into education/signage/bridges/trail maintenance/enforcement/etc, and model what they believe is a sustainable trail system. As I've stated before, I would appreciate a well maintained and sustainable, Alberta wide, trail system myself. Hell, maybe they could "earn" their way back into the Castle in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverDoctor Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 They will not police themselves. The organized OHV group will but only with their members and on their trails. That leaves the bulk of riders who don't belong to any group and do their own thing. Some are careful but most take great joy in running streams and making bogs into mud holes. They want the status quo but refuse to use constraint or follow the rules. Most have no idea about the laws that are in place to protect sensitive areas. The hobby is to dig up as much as you can and wetlands, bogs, and creeks are the targets. Being involved with Trout Unlimited to try to undo damage to headwaters planting willows and other recovery work I've seen first hand the damage and the need to try to save delicate areas. Areas we planted where run over even though signs wherein place. Bridges have been placed over creeks with large boulders in place to encourage people from crossing without damaging banks. They removed the boulders and run through the creeks leaving the bridges unused. Plus we still have people washing off their units at the end of the day in rivers. Some of the areas look like a war zone. This is the kind of stupidity that finally gets the government to step in. I was discouraged but now see a light at the end of the tunnel with government action. Not that I want the government to step in but it's got to that point. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sage Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Well stated Lornce! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningChrome Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 I think the battle for the Castle is over and the OHV community has lost. There will be the last gasps but I just don't see enough support from the public for their cause. I also think it is only the first area to go as the activities move elsewhere. It seems to me that they should look forward and pick another area and PROVE that their enforcement agenda will work. We still need to keep encouraging people to fill out the draft management plan survey though. Everything I've heard says that the overwhelming majority of responses to it have been from OHV users. One of the guys from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers went to the info session at Chain Lakes last weekend and was told by the Parks folks that they need to hear a lot more support from our sectors (hunters, anglers, hikers, paddlers, etc). As I've stated before, I would appreciate a well maintained and sustainable, Alberta wide, trail system myself. I agree - a well-engineered, sustainable trail system could even be a tourist attraction like Moab and the Rubicon. I'm not anti-OHV, I'm only opposed to irresponsible use. Kevin Van Tighem wrote an excellent op-ed about the need for OHVs to have trails and I agree with him. Hell, maybe they could "earn" their way back into the Castle in the future. I wouldn't want to see this happen. There shouldn't be any OHV use so close to the headwaters, even if it's responsible use. There are still a bunch of issues around soil compaction and sedimentation even with responsible use. Plus I think either way we need parklands without the constant noise and fear of being run over. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailhead Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 The problems I see with the OHV use are; one the majority, as Silver Dr said, have no clue about regulations, safety or environmental responsibility. Secondly the organized groups, funded by equipment manufacturers and retailers, will lobby very hard to quash any reduction in their use of areas in which to ride. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted March 14, 2017 Author Share Posted March 14, 2017 I think the battle for the Castle is over and the OHV community has lost. There will be the last gasps but I just don't see enough support from the public for their cause. I also think it is only the first area to go as the activities move elsewhere. This comment makes me really nervous. This is no time for folks to get complacent. We are already seeing some significant changes to the original management plan - many of those changes favour the OHV community. They are making their voices heard and rallying to this cause hard. I believe this government has the conviction to do the right thing, but they need to know that folks out there have their back on this. Fill out the survey, get your family to do it, get your friends to do it. We need to match their level of passion on this. https://talkaep.alberta.ca/CastleManagementPlan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningChrome Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Secondly the organized groups, funded by equipment manufacturers and retailers, will lobby very hard to quash any reduction in their use of areas in which to ride. Absolutely. They've already run full page ads in the Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, and Lethbridge Herald - possibly others as well. It'd be nice to see them actually invest the money in creating sustainable trails and rider education instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Well in the paper today they said there fazing out OHV use in the castle river parks over the next 5 years. But really isn't it just going to force people to the livingtone or oldman and other areas that are already heavily used. The only logical solution is trail system for OHV riders. I find it funny that they have such great trail systems for OHV use in Quebec and Ontario But poor old Alberta cant afford any trails or even take proper care of its lakes and rivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningChrome Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 I find it funny that they have such great trail systems for OHV use in Quebec and Ontario But poor old Alberta cant afford any trails or even take proper care of its lakes and rivers. That's because the previous government had no plan to manage OHV use and just let them go where they pleased. OHV use is currently allowed on 90% of public lands in Alberta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billie Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 They will not police themselves.............The hobby is to dig up as much as you can and wetlands, bogs, and creeks are the targets. But that is really my point, WRT your comments and the others. Kicking OHV's out of the Castle is not really a solution, although it is a positive for that area, it only transfers the problem elsewhere. In truth, it is one-sided. We actually NEED a trail system for a successful future. Do anyone think you can eliminate quads from the province altogether? Even if you could, I wouldn't agree. I want sensitive areas protected but I don't feel I have the right to completely deny someone else's entertainment, whether its my cup-o-tea or not. To be honest, there is nothing wrong with playing in the mud, it just has to be the right mud. Contained areas, absent of fish bearing streams, dedicated to the sport would provide a place to play (like McLean, although I have never looked at the drainage considerations of the area) and a trail system where responsible operation is exercised and the users actually report the abuses, because they want to, or they lose it. Thus my suggestion that the OHV groups begin by proving proper stewardship, and with support, not complete condemnation. It works in other places and it is a cooperative approach to the problem that is much more likely to succeed. What would be wrong with a PROPER trail in the Castle? Seasonal may be appropriate in many places, no different than spawning restrictions or migration corridor limitations. We should be able to travel from Montana to NWT with stop offs along the way some day. The machines are not going to just go away. Complacency is acknowledged, but the government of the day is still the door to any solutions. The NDP has the drive right now but if a conservative/WR government gets in next, it all could be lost instantly, all surveys aside. But, if a viable trail system was initiated, even they may get behind it. The solution has to include everyone as much as possible so that compromising the progress is politically detrimental for every party. And why wouldn't the manufacturers get behind it? Granted they could use a few lessons in responsible advertising. GrnDrake has the most sentient comment above. The cost is actually a pretty big deal. Anyway, I'm not much of an activist, I'll just keep hiding in the woods as long as I can. And I will ask everyone I can to fill in the survey. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted March 15, 2017 Author Share Posted March 15, 2017 Bow River Chapter adds their voice in support of protecting the Castle - http://bowriver.org/2017/03/15/castle/ 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.