Self Righteous and Prejudice Discrimination Against Motorized Access Based on Agenda Driven Lobbying and Inconclusive Science?
Google "quiet recreation" AND a few terms like "ssrp", "Livingstone", "Castle", "Porcupine Hills", Bighorn", "Alberta", etc and browse what you see. We've included some of the results in the comments. What you will come to see is not only many household names in the agenda driven ENGO lobbying arena, but also what appears to be a calculated effort of many elitist groups and individuals to create a movement for their preferred form of recreation and ecotourism, over one they appear to disdain. Look closely at the language used, group names, boards of directors, cross support and representations on government committees like SARAG (Southern Alberta Recreation Advisory Group), financial support from agenda driven foundations outside of Canada, financial stake of many involved (think accommodations and eco tourism companies), coverage in the media, and other concerning points. A clearer picture of a seemingly long term calculated deck stacking against an unsuspecting group of recreational users begins to emerge as one sees the patterns. One can almost begin to see beyond just the funding, and perhaps get a glimpse into WHAT this funding is being spent on; an extensive, seemingly grassroots Alliance for lobbying via the bureacracy to implement their activist objectives. Take a closer look into the visions, annual reports and funding, communications, committees, lobby efforts etc of these groups to see how they have effectively worked their way into positions of influence, shaping public opinion, and moreover, policy. As governments change, it appears the modus operandi is to skip straight to influencing the bureaucracy who really holds the power in terms of specific land use policy. One example of this cross representative deck stacking is the SARAG process. Here is a group of stakeholders that is supposed to represent the plethora of interests in the province. Yet there are multiple layers of overlap, vastly limiting the actual representative dynamics of the group. Ask yourself: do you feel represented down South? One group representing non motorized use is the Outdoor Recreation Coalition of Alberta (ORCA). They seem broad and representative right? Well they limit their representation to being the "voice for quiet recreationalists in Alberta" and go on to clarify their camp excludes motorized interests. Do they walk and ride bikes to their staging areas? Are they whispering only on their trips? Do they use silent high frequency bear deterrent systems? Looking at their Board, two names come up that give them double representation at SARAG. The first is Director Connie Simmons of Y2Y and the second is Neil Keown of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Both organizations already have official seats at SARAG. Interestingly, a BHA director, who is also a CPAWS director is named as the Y2Y contact on SARAG (Katie Morrison). Who else has double representation on this and other groups? In future segments of this series we will look at the groups in Bighorn and see what cross representations and financial gains their members have (we know of 2 high profile members now that are members of AHA, and they have quite interesting roles in the Bighorn lobby effort, and another made the news around the time Phillips lied about the RCMP to cancel the public meetings). Many recreation users I know use motorized access to also get to places where we can enjoy this so called quiet recreation. Rather than hike areas where parking lots are full and we see countless people on trails talking blocking trails for pictures, we like to use our sxs to get 30-50 kms back far away from anyone. Talk about quiet recreation! We load the MTN bikes and shuttle to the top of our hills and ride down, just like people do at places in Bragg Creek etc. Is their motorized access more quiet or important than ours? I think groups like CPAWS have something different in mind when they say motorized use is ok as long as among other things it does not "disturb quiet recreationalists." What gives these lobbyists posing as charities the right to dictate who constitutes enjoyment of quiet recreation and to what extent? These elitist, self righteous, agenda driven lobbyists must be exposed for their apparent self interested efforts to displace groups they misrepresent and villianize. In part 2 we will be discussing the Livingstone Landowners Group among other quiet recreation advocates. You'll recognize some of those names like Kevin Van Tighem, who has had many articles in the news talking about motorized use, some of which included the seemingly staunch anti motorized access Lorne Fitch. Please take the time to review the pics and do this Google search. It will be important to know the back story when we discuss the forthcoming players and processes. This is why we need the War Room the UCP promised. In their investigations into the foreign influence in our province they could use our support and feedback. Similar to the oil and gas lobbying, this extension of what the money is spent on and what the specific processes entail are of quintessential importance to be investigated. We can kick the dead horse all day long, but eventually it has to be taken away and disposed of.
0 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
August 2019
Categories |