Sunchild First Nations. Video of First Nations speaking to the lack of consultation on the Bighorn proposal.
0 Comments
Danielle Smith interviewed Harvey Locke on 1/11/19 and he provided an explanation as to why the Bighorn proposal was so important for wildlife and why use should be restricted along with development . He also spoke to the insane idea that land needs to be "connected".
BIGHORN: THE DECEIT AND MISTRUST. Watch this video to learn how Shannon Phillips has continued to lie to Albertans about the Bighorn Park proposal.
BIGHORN: The BIG Lie. This is an excellent video that documents the lies behind the Bighorn Park proposal by Notley. It is NOT a small group of people who oppose this, it is the majority of Albertans. Watch and learn more about the truth. Back in 2010 Barrack Obama issued a memorandum that directed the Department of Interior to create landscape conservation cooperatives across the United States. In the U.S. the northwest cooperative included a partnership with the Canadian government. This was done without any Provincial or Congressional authority. One Province affected by this was Alberta which is included in the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC). GNLCC is a partnership between governments, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO), and land trusts. In Canada this includes the Alberta and British Columbia governments. In these partnerships it is the goal to place as much land as possible into protected status or conservation, especially targeting land that sits between existing protected areas such as Jasper and Banff. This creates their idea of “connectivity”, by connecting the protected areas together. More specific details about the GNLCC can be found here. At that time, Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) was known as Alberta Environment Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) and was a GNLCC member. When Shannon Phillips came into office in 2015 the name was changed to AEP. Since 2010 the Canadian government has been participating in the GNLCC. The GNLCC has been primarily directed by the Steering Committee (SC) which developed goals and objectives for conservation. One of the earliest participants on the GNLCC Steering Committee (SC) was Ron Bjorge from the ESRD as Director of Wildlife. Mr. Bjorge was also a previous member the the Alberta Chapter of the Wildlife Society, a ENGO, along with Lorne Fitch who works with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) and Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute. Other associations he has is the Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Another Canadian who served as a proxy SC member in 2010 was Rick Blackwood who was listed as the Southern Rockies Area Manager. At that time he was also serving as the Assistant Deputy Minister in the Fish and Wildlife Division, later moving to Assistant Deputy Minister, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. and finally, his current position of Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy Division Environment and Parks. Mr. Blackwood has been lurking around at meetings on the Bighorn Park proposal. His job is strategy. Does that include strategizing how to manipulate Albertans into believing they have had any involvement in the Bighorn park proposal, convince them they are being listened to or convincing them what a great idea the Bighorn park is, or how to further implement GNLCC goals of placing all land between protected areas such as Jasper and Banff into protection? On the AEP website there isn't even a clear description of what the Strategy Division is or what his job entails. Perhaps the best description of his job comes from the Canadian Institute where he is "responsible for strategic relationships and engagement, strategy development and foresight, systems thinking and design and the ongoing integration of the various elements of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development". Perhaps he is lurking around to develop those strategic relationships and engage with those who oppose the park, then further strategize how the park can be integrated into policy element to element. Connectivity is why the Bighorn is such a targeted area, and Mr. Blackwood is part of that connectivity agenda given his background with the GNLCC and Wildlife Society. In later years it was Ian Dyson from the ESRD who participated in the GNLCC (pg 15). Below is a PDF summary of one of the initial GNLCC meetings in 2010, laying out the beginning strategy for landscape conservation, a "framework". Both Blackwood and Bjorge can be found as SC participants on page 20. They are all friends. Yellowstone to Yukon, Wilderness Society, Nature Conservancy, Alberta Land Trust, governments, and so many others attend conferences, network with each other, and their only goal in mind is taking your right to use your land away from you. Get to know those players, and their connections. It makes one wonder which one has an inside to Wikipedia to distort the truth there. Perhaps part of Mr. Blackwood's strategy and his continued connections with Simon Dyer? PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH ALL RANCHERS YOU KNOW. THE TIME HAS COME TO PARTNER WITH THEM TO PROTECT OUR MUTUAL INTERESTS
Ranchers could be the next group fenced out of Alberta park. The announcement by the Notley government establishing Castle Provincial Park had a familiar pattern. The government first announces that it is considering an initiative, then states it will consult with stakeholders, and after a few meetings, proclaims what it planned to do all along. This sort of cynical political process is not unique to the present government, but it is more obvious being its power base is so heavily dependent on Calgary and Edmonton voters. One needs to realize that green lobby groups are the soulmates of this government. They have the government’s ear and that overwhelms the other stakeholders. These groups are also advocates of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, an organization dedicated to turning the entire Rocky Mountains into a park. This new park is part of the plan. But here’s the reality; I expect few members of green lobby groups ride off-highway vehicles in the wilderness, nor do they graze cattle on public land. What they do is hiking, mountain biking, bird watching, etc. To an urban-based government, those activities seem a lot more politically correct when considering city voter intentions. The fix was in from the start. The government tried to placate off-highway vehicle users by promising that other areas would be opened to them – only the innocent would believe that tall tale. But make no mistake about it, the green lobby groups that influenced this decision have no more love for grazing cattle than they have for off-highway vehicles. Those folks want to see wildlife in the new park and not have to dodge cow pies on hiking trails. You can read more about it here. Call the AEP and ask them why a petition with over 20,000 signatures is being ignored! Call these two directly:
Rick Blackwood (Assistant Deputy Minister/Strategy) 780 427 1139 Eric Denhoff (Deputy Minister) 780 614 5155 Also call news agencies and ask them if they have the courage to cover this issue in a fair and balanced manner. At the end you will see a link to an article on the history of the Environmental Movement in AB that will provide context to the public land use issue. One thing that appears certain is an intensive lobby campaign to send pre written letters (BHA, AB Preserves, Love Your Headwaters, and I think CPAWS) resulted in 21,000 something 'letters' supporting a Park (how many of these people use these areas and are educated on the matter?). This seems to have more weight than a grassroots petition from concerned users with over 20,000 signatures (over 2000 new signatures since the CBC story broke last week) in opposition. Given the rallies, opinion polls, the groups in opposition to this, the farce of a consultation process and the inconclusive data in the science report, it would be an injustice to designate a Bighorn Park without revisiting consultations. In other words, the government needs to realize that it made mistakes, and go back to the drawing board to fix the southern PLUZ areas, and make sure any Bighorn legislation reflects all users in a fair and sustainable way. If they fail to do this the people will only grow in their anger and the legitimacy of all these groups pushing for a Park will be compromised. I'd rather have meaningful partnerships and find solutions to legit problems. You know I've had a dozen or so pro park people get into this discussion and not once will they answer this simple question, which to me shows they either don't care, don't know, or don't want to know: - if we build bridges, control sediment with grates and cross ditching, close redundant trails, cycle trails so they can rehabilitate, and we maintain these trails, what other reason is there to discriminate against the OHV folks? I've asked this multiple times, and the same few pro parks people (Christopher Smith usually - who works for CPAWS and chimes in all the time) either deflect or quietly disappear. That's why we are done trying to argue with these folks. It's obvious there's one way and that's their way. So in addition to flooding the govt with calls, letters, and this specific petition, we need to focus on getting every shred of this story to the UCP, who will be pressured to make things right (and they are very very aware of the bigger picture and the local picture). Pick up the phone and sign the petition if you haven't already. This site compares both the similarities between environmentalism and classical fascism and the connections between environmentalism and modern fascistic, or archconservative, individuals and groups. Article on Environmentalism is Fascism. Hey Backcountry Motorized Users, this is what so many people are being told OHV represents. Is this really what you want the general public to wrongfully think of you? People like this are reason you're being discriminated against and why groups want you removed from the landscape. But you also share some of the blame for not addressing some of the legitimate issues. Nonetheless, you should be partnered with to create solutions, not whipped and beaten. Read the reports, gather your thoughts, and challenge the contentious parts you take issue with. The cherry picked, embellished pictures are strategically used to make OHV users look bad. We have photos and videos comparing OHV use to equestrian, cattle ripping up the banks, walking up streams, thunder storms, and most severely, the flood damages. When comparing them all it is evident that the OHV users are being scapegoated, and other legitimate issues are being overlooked. Are you the low hanging fruit? We have also linked the science report used to justify closing down over 75% of the trials in the new Southern PLUZ areas. Take a read through it and let us know SPECIFICALLY what questions and concerns you have, as we will be releasing a full review of this with many field analysts weighing in. We can all agree we must to our share of the heavy lifting, obey regulations, and report abusers to continue to have access. That is why regulation and deterrents (fines) should be used within the PLUZ framework. Anyone that argues for exclusion is just discriminating against one group over another. Imagine a discussion on generalizing all Backcountry recreation users, and instead of using activities we use people. Rather than hiking, biking, snowmobiling, hunting, for example, we use different types of people. Let's say men, women, aboriginals, Hispanics, African Americans, and causations. For every time you see a negative accusation against OHV use, replace the word OHV with the word Hispanic or Aboriginal, Women, etc. Then take a step back, listen to what you just said and try to tell people that sounds legitimate. Let's apply this to recent articles from a leading figure in the anti OHV community: https://www.producer.com/…/ohv-conspiracies-muddy-the-deba…/ https://lethbridgeherald.com/…/stuck-in-the-mud-the-ohv-de…/ https://www.google.ca/…/fitch-and-van-tighem-dont-repea…/amp https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4471857 https://donmeredith.wordpress.com/category/lorne-fitch/ Lorne Fitch | Don Meredith Outdoors Posts about Lorne Fitch written by Don Meredith. Alberta Government 8/1/18 All Canadians have the right to engage in recreational activities and sports, including Off-roading, and sports like hunting and fishing that require responsible use of an OHV for access - especially for participants with disabilities. As you will see in the below links, this is a human right protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Act, the Act to Promote Physical Activity and Sport, and other legislative frameworks. Many have been writing us and expressing that they feel the recent public lands management plans by the NDP government discriminate against them unjustifiably, and infringe these rights. Many have also felt helpless in being able to effectively have their voices heard. If you are looking for an effective and practical way to express your legitimate concerns, you can visit the resources below, and see if your situation warrants a human rights complaint. If you would like to begin the process of formal complaints and/or a lawsuit for infringement on your fundamental rights and freedoms, please contact us for more information. If you are a lawyer with a vested interest in this issue please contact us to discuss legal options for our followers. Given the research we have done on the validity of the science reports, the issues with the consultation process, the trail maps, and the effects on users such as but not limited to users with mobility disabilities, it is understandable why so many people feel discriminated against. As a responsible land user myself, I feel my right to access viable hunting grounds to provide for my family via my OHV has been unjustly infringed. "Sport for persons with a disability" refers to sport activities at all levels and in all forms of participation for persons with a disability. It includes athletes and participants with a disability who pursue competitive or recreational sport. This enactment enacts the Accessible Canada Act in order to enhance the full and equal participation of all persons, especially persons with disabilities, in society. This is to be achieved through the progressive realization, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, of a Canada without barriers, particularly by the identification, removal and prevention of barriers." Policy on Sport for Persons with a Disability "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Act, the Act to Promote Physical Activity and Sport, and other legislative frameworks guarantee the exercise and enjoyment of civil, social, economic, political and cultural rights for all Canadians. They require federal government departments and agencies to develop inclusive policies, programs and practices." Accessible Canada Act Federal Canada Human Rights Commission How to file a complaint Provincial Alberta Human Rights Commission - Complainant Information Alberta Human Rights Commission - Complaint Process For those who might be skeptical about the collusion of both the Canadian and U.S. governments regarding decisions about land use, besides going back to 2010 with the initiation of LCCs, both governments came together for an analysis on our respective lands. In 2013, the following government agencies, NGOs, and LCCs received a report, Landscape Patterns Environmental Quality Analysis. Who created this report isn't real clear. In Canada: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Crown Managers Partnership Prairie Conservation Forum The Oldman Watershed Council Department of National Defense: Canadian Forces Base Suffield (Why is the military involved in this?) In U.S. : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Great Northern and Plains, Prairie Potholes Landscape Conservation Cooperatives A literature review of 172 papers was the essence of this report which are outlined beginning on page 67. The intent of the report, "...summarizes findings from published literature identifying significant relationships between land use patterns and thresholds of environmental quality." Forever to blame are humans, "...human patterns of land use have implications for the quality of ecosystem components and the provision of ecosystem services." They are studying and analyzing how humans should fit into the equation of land use with the least amount of environmental harm. The Prairie Conservation Forum, however, gives a nice summary of the report and the next step which involves "...collaboration amongst the funding parties regarding ways in which landscape metrics can be used to support environmental outcomes in land use and conservation planning." Funding parties include the Alberta government and energy companies. One word, corporatism, fits this agenda. OHV Use 7/29/18 As a partner with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA), and Alberta Conservation Association (ACA), the Castle-Crown Wilderness Coalition (CCWC) is a force behind influencing legislative policy and were thrilled when the Alberta government declared "...protection of the Castle under Alberta’s Parks and Protected Areas Act." and in 2015 when "...the Alberta government announced the creation of a Provincial Park and Wilderness Park." It is no coincidence that their goals for a wilderness were met by the government. CCWC's next goal, as a "management principle", is banning OHV use because it is such a "threat" to the area. Other activities they want to ban includes hunting, oil & gas extraction, and logging. However, they have also decided what activity is "compatible", including horses, guiding, nature study, wildlife viewing, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing, just to name a few. It is benevolent of them to consider "Gateway community development outside of the park will benefit local economies and eliminate the need for highway-side development within the park." They have it all figured out for you with their plan, which just happens to be what Y2Y wants. For Y2Y, the "...Castle Parks provide an essential protected landscape and wildlife corridor link in the northeast corner of the Crown of the Continent." Castle Parks is being used as part of the Y2Y connectivity agenda, it has nothing to do with protecting water or wildlife, and in which Alberta Government official Ian Dyson and Ian Parnell from Environment Canada participate through the GNLCC. The objective for connecting protected areas to each other is also met as seen on the map in this pdf document. The Alberta Environment & Parks Castle Management Plan can be found here. However, over 25,000 have responded from the Alberta Fish & Game Association, objecting to an OHV ban in the parks. Why can't groups such as Y2Y and CCWC understand that there are OHV groups who support responsible use and make up the majority? There is no reason for banning responsible OHV users from the parks. Harvey Locke 7/26/2018 Harvey Locke has significant influence over the government and decisions on land use, and has deep ties to Yellowstone to Yukon and the IUCN. His goal is banning use in at least 17% of Alberta by 2020. He was recently asked to serve on the National Advisory Council (NAC), a global plan, whose goal is placing more land into conservation through protected areas, more land lost to users in Alberta. Given Mr. Locke serves on the United Nations NGO, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), he essentially will be implementing UN goals for conservation, the identified Target 1 objective of the NAC. The IUCN Aichi target goals use protected areas as a key conservation tool, and he will be implementing that philosophy as a NAC member, in partnership with Shannon Phillips. While NAC claims the members are comprised of different representation, the remaining members are ENGO representatives (CPAWS, TNC), former government employees, environmentalists, and Tribes. There is NO citizen representation. This group will be deciding which areas they will cut off from use to meet their goal by 2020. Don't get distracted by local ENGO efforts to ban land use as these foot soldiers are assigned to implement this at the local level, this group is the real driver behind declaring protected areas and need to be the focus for action as well as Ms. Phillips and her involvement with these groups rather than the citizens she is suppose to represent. Castle Park 7/25/18 In spite of the Alberta government announcing a management plan for Castle Park and Castle Wildland Provincial Park in January, 2018 that included the phasing out of OHV use, Y2Y wants more. Y2Y acknowledges the outpouring of opposition to this future restriction of OHV use while expressing disdain and minimizing its significance, "...OHV users only account for 10 per cent...". Alberta citizens should not be dismissed in their right to oppose a government decision. Y2Y provides an avenue to support their cause with the Alberta Government which is interesting since both belong to the GNLCC and share the same objectives. Of course CPAWS also had their hand in the decision with Katie Morrison, CPAWS conservation director, being part of the "multi-stakeholder" group on the decision.7/25/2018. Bighorn 7/25/18
The Bighorn in Alberta is a high target of Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), CPAWS, and the Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA). These groups want all OHV use out of the area and having it declared a Wildland Park which would mean permanent protection and either severely restricted or banned use, maybe limiting it's use to only hiking or horses. This area is seen as "An integral linkage area between Banff and Jasper, the region provides large-scale wildlife connectivity along Alberta’s Eastern Slopes...". It is just one more piece of land for completion of their overall goal of connectivity and restricted land use and they see the election of Shannon Phillips as a plus for this agenda.7/25/2018 |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
August 2019
Categories |