Alberta Land Rover Enthusiasts Club Forum
General => Non Technical Discussion => Topic started by: Red90 on September 04, 2015, 05:15 PM
Proposed new parks: http://www.albertaparks.ca/media/6369189/castle-publication_20150902.pdf
Oh well. No more wheeling south of the #3. Too bad. Some wonderful trails down there.
going the way of the Wiaporus >:(
Very unfortunate, but not at all a surprise.
This province, and country, suck.
Quote from: Trevor on September 04, 2015, 07:53 PM
Very unfortunate, but not at all a surprise.
This province, and country, suck.
They sure don't have a clue on Multi-use land management here That's for sure......
I haven't spent much time down south in that part of the province. Would be nice to have a club event there to check it out.
Draft plan released. https://talkaep.alberta.ca/CastleManagementPlan
No motorized access. Page 102 of the plan.
It also looks like they remaining area between the Castle and Kananaskis will soon follow. The government has named these areas the "Livingstone and Porcupine Hills priority planning areas" with a statement that new rules will be put out this year for motorized access.
Grrrrrrgh!!!! >:(
Yeah, rest of the east slopes will follow. Athabasca, Cool Spur and North Sasketchewan headwaters are also "under examination".
Unfortunately all the places I like to camp/fish will soon be off limits. The greenies win again.
Meh, time to buy a house in Moab. Lotsa good trout fishing around there from what I'm told. :)
This is going to exclude lots of folks from enjoying the wilderness that are unable to cover the distances on foot or on a pedal bike.
Very disappointing that the people in charge are so unwilling to take other uses into consideration. But not very surprising.
https://talkaep.alberta.ca/CastleManagementPlan/survey_tools/castle-provincial-park-and-castle-wildland-provincial-park-management-plan-survey
The above link from Facebook was shared by the Snowmobile association. It's a government survey after the fact. Somehow, they are measuring the various groups responses. Check it out and participate at your own discretion.
Emad
It's very much a survey that's directing answers toward what they want to hear. >:(
I filled this survey and wrote my comments too. However, in the realm of things, I am sure it will be translated and interpreted like this video clip
https://youtu.be/nAI8qkUgqU4
I would suspect that if anyone wants to do a trip across Racehorse or North Fork Pass this may be the last summer that it will be possible.
When we went out there last summer the Racehorse pass was already closed.
Just out of curiousity.....are the BC side of these trails closed as well?
Quote from: Matt H on January 27, 2017, 09:53 AM
When we went out there last summer the Racehorse pass was already closed.
Based on what? It is not in a managed area, so can't be. There is a yearly closure on the BC side for bear migration.
Based on signs and barriers on the trail/road leading to it saying it's closed.
Lots of the signage in the area seemed to be deliberately vague, inconclusive, and potentially, out of date. They carried warnings that the signs themselves could be inaccurate and give a general website address to obtain more information. A website with no additional info that gives a phone number with nobody on the other end.
One thing however was very clear. The consequences of being on a trail that you are not supposed to be on. Seeing as none of us had an extra $5K we were prepared to risk, we decided not to try for the Pass.
Did you get any pictures? There has always been a gate on the road on the BC side. The trail enters further down. There are closure signs for Sept to Nov.
There is a closure due to the mine apparently for North Fork.
Was this the BC side? This is the newest map from the government. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/kootenay/eco/maps/AlexanderCreek.pdf
What confuses people is the "Roads Open September 1 - November 30 ATV Use Only" This is intended to mean it is open to all users the rest of the year....and ATV only Sept to Nov. Some clearer maps and some pictures of the gate and signs here: http://www.oldqs.com/node/518
There is some uncertainty with getting into the North Fork Pass trail as it runs by or through mine land. I'd need to go look, but I'm pretty sure that there is a way through without getting on the mine property.
It's entirely possible that, in fact, we were allowed access but misunderstood the signage? If so that is unfortunate as we endeavoured only to use approved trails but misinterpreted the locked gate and $5K fine warning signs.
If the object of the signage is to discourage responsible access then I'd say it's working.
The links that you posted Red90 help in understanding the access challenge to these areas. The alpine eco system does get impacted heavily by unresponsible users as it takes years to recover. Maybe a trip to the base with a camp setup and hike after is going to become the norm for these off-roading trips in these protected areas.
The north and north west side of the province is lightly used and does provide access to some exciting trails. Need to explore some more.
The area was gorgeous back before quads... heavy use by (unresponsable) quad users seems to be what has really wrecked things.
Quote from: headdamage on January 30, 2017, 01:10 PM
The area was gorgeous back before quads... heavy use by (unresponsable) quad users seems to be what has really wrecked things.
That seems to be a common theme for the quaders/side-by-side community...they tend to kick the crap out of areas. 4x4 users can be complete ass-tards too, but as a community we just seem to have far fewer idgits than the quad/side-by-side community. Or maybe it is simply that we have a far smaller community, and the ass-tards are proportionately represented in each group.
I dunno.
However you come at it, tis a real shame to see.
IMO... The percentage of idiots is no different. It is just a lot less people. There are just as many idiot truck users. We see them all of the time on the trails.
On this particular area, the local club has spent endless hours and funds in maintaining and developing a sustainable trail system. They really have done a great job adding bridges and creating new trails to bypass bad areas. They have installed signage and barriers to keep people on the right trails. They really are a shining example of how things should be done. And it was working and working well. The original plan was that the government was to design a sustainable trail system and regulation framework in concert with the local clubs. This was underway and was completely and totally ignored by Alberta Parks.
The closure of this area has zero to do with actual damage or damage prevention. It has zero to do with science. It is 100% to do with people in the upper levels of Alberta Parks that are opposed to motorized use under any circumstances.
Do not buy into the crap that is being used as an excuse to close these areas.
Good info John.
I wasn't aware that the community down there had made such inroads with the government. I would agree, that model is _exactly_ how things should be done, as it's been proven time and again to be viable and effective.
Alas it comes as no surprise that Parks has managed to tank it.
My crystal ball tells me that when they PLUZ the area between the #3 and Kananaskis later this year, they will allow designated OHV access, but will not allow truck access. This will calm the OHV guys down and partially appease the environmentalists. The word on the street is there will be a 6000 foot cap on trails putting North Fork and Racehorse on the closure list. I actually would not be surprised to see parks introduced along the extent of the divide. You would not want people driving up the well developed road that goes over Racehorse....
The rumbling that I've heard is that the 3 primary watersheds in the province (Oldman/Bow, North Sask, and Athabasca) are all to fall under greater parks control as part of a greater water management/sustainability plan. I don't know exactly what that means, other than the expanse of the parks generally is at least being considered for some of these other areas. Oldman/Bow is clearly under examination, as we're seeing that happen in Castle. Nordegg region and Coalspur PLUZ were mentioned to me as on the list.
Keep in mind that SRD does not exist anymore. They were integrated into one group with parks, now called AEP (Alberta Environment and Parks). http://aep.alberta.ca/
The forestry areas and management of resource development is all one big happy organization with Parks. Without knowing the details, I guessing the someone from what used to be in "Parks" is now in charge of the whole mess and is making sure that things like motorized use will be shutdown ASAP province wide.
That would make sense then. The gist I got from a friend in the organization (I didn't realize SRD/Parks had merged though) is that the expansion of the formal "Park" space was the end game to protect these watersheds. This is all starting to make a lot more sense now (not in a good way mind you) seeing what has transpired in the Castle area.
I think you probably nailed it...a Parks executive likely took over as the top bureaucrat, and that's setting the agenda. And it would fit in well with the Notley gov's green initiative.
Quote from: Red90 on January 30, 2017, 03:27 PM
Keep in mind that SRD does not exist anymore. They were integrated into one group with parks, now called AEP (Alberta Environment and Parks). http://aep.alberta.ca/
Once upon a time the department that controlled all the small campsites around the province (that were not part of PARKs) was AFS (Alberta Forest Service) AKA "As Fred Says", referring the minister at the time Fred McDougall. The days of forest guardians, afs campsites, dirt cheap camping and lots of summer employment for students. Looks like we may be heading full circle ahhahahhhahah
I came across this article about Mud Bogging fines in the Ocanagon area in BC. I am glad that they are catching such violators.
http://infotel.ca/newsitem/mud-boggers-getting-spattered-with-fines-in-the-north-okanagan/it39539#.WJ-aENs-VAh.email
I had a discussion with the fellows attending the booth st the RV ShoW today from the Parks. New maps are available for quaking in the Hinton area and in Kananaskis. The term OHV that they use only covers the quads class not SUVs or highway vehicles. Their advise was to consult with enforcement at Fish and Wild life before going into an area for clarity about some of these trails.
I am curious if anybody has the definition of OHV in the other legislations or transport Canada
It's deliberately vague. The message however is clear. STAY OUT!
Tread lightly.....that's what we try and do. You make a mess of an area you are sure to be shut down. Makes sense to me. John lead us on a couple BC trails all set up for OHV and the rules were clear.....if you wander off the track you will pay the piper! The one trail we took through the sub alpine meadows and it was amazing country!! Then you see a patch were folks were trying to high mark or climb a very steep section of hill with no other reason then to say they did it. It's those idiots that ruin it for all those good folk that are trying to be responsible off road. And there are more of them then you would think....unfortunately.
To be clear trucks are no longer allowed off road in this area either. That is explained in the plan separate from OHVs. The definition of OHV is different for each location in the province.
There seems to be confusion over what has happened in this area and I will try and explain.
There has been a trail system in place for a couple of decades. The local quad club has developed a sustainable and well executed network of trails in conjunction with the government. They have built dozen of bridges. They have closed trails that had problems and built new ones that followed sustainable routes. It is the poster child for how to create a good off road area. All trails were open to trucks and OHVs with different trails for summer and winter.
The area is NOT being destroyed or "ripped up" nor undergoing any environmental degradation. THAT is 100% propaganda to convince the unwary public that they are right in closing the area. There is no science behind any of the decisions. The trails are mostly old access roads that are hard pack, rock and very durable.
In September 2015, the government announced the creation of these parks (see my first post). They put out this document: http://www.albertaparks.ca/media/6369189/castle-publication_20150902.pdf It says.
QuoteOff-Highway Vehicles: Yes, on designated trails and areas
Snowmobiling: Yes, on designated trails and areas
The government then formed a committee in conjunction with the quad club to develop a new trail system. They have been meeting ever since and at no time were told the area would be shut down. The decision was NOT made by the people that were actually working on the issue.
This same game plan is what has been happening with every area in Southern Alberta for the last 40 years.
Quote from: B-Red on February 11, 2017, 10:25 PM
I am curious if anybody has the definition of OHV in the other legislations or transport Canada
Section 117
TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT
(a) "off-highway vehicle" means any motorized mode of
transportation built for cross-country travel on land, water,
snow, ice or marsh or swamp land or on other natural
terrain and, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, includes, when specifically designed for such
travel,
(i) 4-wheel drive vehicles,
(ii) low pressure tire vehicles,
(iii) motor cycles and related 2-wheel vehicles,
(iv) amphibious machines,
(v) all terrain vehicles,
(vi) miniature motor vehicles,
(vii) snow vehicles,
(viii) minibikes, and
(ix) any other means of transportation that is propelled by
any power other than muscular power or wind,
but does not include
(x) motor boats, or
(xi) any other vehicle exempted from being an offhighway
vehicle by regulation;
Although this reads like 4x4's should be included in an OHV designation, I know from the experience of a few friends running on a trail up by Cardinal that was open to OHV, that the government absolutely DOES NOT view trucks the same as quads. They were ticketrd, they went to court, and they lost. However, they did not lawyer up which was a mistake.
Part of the problem is that each county or PLUZ can write a different set of rules. Moreover none needs to provide clear conveyance of those rules, it is simply your obligation to know them, and know what they mean...textbook example of the idiocy of government bureaucracy, and the burden it places on the populace.
So when its all said and done it is hard to predict what in fact will be happening in other areas. One thing is for sure though, 4x4's have no organizational lobby groups with any stoke. The quaders are the only ones with meaningful input as they are reasonably well organized in different areas of the province.
Each area has a specific definition of OHV that is written into the area management plan. Some areas use width, some weight. You have to look into the details for each location.
As far as the Castle goes they clearly state no 4x4 or any highway going vehicle.
Quote from: Trevor
One thing is for sure though, 4x4's have no organizational lobby groups with any stoke. The quaders are the only ones with meaningful input as they are reasonably well organized in different areas of the province.
It does not matter. We used to have a big organized group. Massive amounts of work were done. After the Ghost fiasco everyone had reached their fill of being lied to and decided it was better to just not let the government know where we went driving.
There will not be any management plans that allow truck use period. It is an easy bone to throw to the environmentalists. The media has destroyed the public image of our hobby.
Quote from: Red90 on February 12, 2017, 10:53 AM
Quote from: Trevor
One thing is for sure though, 4x4's have no organizational lobby groups with any stoke. The quaders are the only ones with meaningful input as they are reasonably well organized in different areas of the province.
It does not matter. We used to have a big organized group. Massive amounts of work were done. After the Ghost fiasco everyone had reached their fill of being lied to and decided it was better to just not let the government know where we went driving.
There will not be any management plans that allow truck use period. It is an easy bone to throw to the environmentalists. The media has destroyed the public image of our hobby.
I don't disagree with that at all John, and I certainly wasn't suggesting we organize as I too think it is a fruitless effort. 4x4 use is a dying hobby in Alberta.
It's much easier (and frankly, pretty darn enjoyable) to take my dollars to the USA and support the towns, shops, gas stations, etc there than go through the hassle of fighting the idiocy here.
What a shame. Alberta trail systems could be among the best and most sustainable in the world if only they could be developed properly.
Quote from: Matt H on February 12, 2017, 05:59 PM
What a shame. Alberta trail systems could be among the best and most sustainable in the world if only they could be developed properly.
You get a snippet of what can be done from the perspective of 4x4 use and trail management in the Grande Cache area. The local 4x4 club in the area, TNT Off-Roaders, worked quite closely with SRD managing a fairly large trail network. Their club based, yearly ACE rally has been a pretty big success. It's a little snippet of goodness in our province at least. I'm really curious to see what happens now that SRD is gone and a new regime is in place for them to interact with.
I agree with you fully though Matt, they could do some amazing things in this province if they decided to.
If they want to preserve the forests, why don't they stop logging in the West Country. Shocking what I saw on Google Earth the other night.
After going through the Mackenzie trip, I gained more respect for logging and forestry industries. Trees will burn, get sick and die. Proper strategies in harvesting them is critical for healthy forests. It's a balancing act.
This advertisement appeared in the Sun today. Please read it and send your petitions and letters in.
Easier to read version: http://www.aohva.com/pdf/AOHVA-Advertorial-website.pdf (http://www.aohva.com/pdf/AOHVA-Advertorial-website.pdf)
Quote from: B-Red on February 24, 2017, 06:10 PM
This advertisement appeared in the Sun today. Please read it and send your petitions and letters in.
You go ahead and start it and we'll sign it ;)
I am on it. Sent a request for their petition form copy. ;-)
Good job....can't complain if we sat back complacent ;)
Draft plan released today. https://talkaep.alberta.ca/livingstone-porcupine-hills-footprint-and-recreation-planning
As expected, they are adding thin a protected area along the entire length of the divide north of highway 3, effectively closing off Northfork and Racehorse pass trails. Implementation is prior to the summer, so any hope of a last trip is probably lost.
The process is interconnected with whar was done on the Saskatchewan side in the south as well. A survey for this draft is open until April 26 as stated on the link from John. Take some time fellows to review and voice your opinion. We all agree to tread lightly on the trails and be stewards of the environment in our activities. Make your voice heared and strong in what you agree or disagree with this draft. Look at the big picture.
Cheers. Emad
Quote from: Red90 on January 30, 2017, 02:06 PM
My crystal ball tells me that when they PLUZ the area between the #3 and Kananaskis later this year, they will allow designated OHV access, but will not allow truck access. This will calm the OHV guys down and partially appease the environmentalists. The word on the street is there will be a 6000 foot cap on trails putting North Fork and Racehorse on the closure list. I actually would not be surprised to see parks introduced along the extent of the divide. You would not want people driving up the well developed road that goes over Racehorse....
Livingstone PLUZ passed into law last week. Covers the whole area from Kananaskis to Hwy 3. No truck trails.... Very little OHV trails. No random camping. The Jeep club guys were told, there will be no enforcement this summer.
http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/public-land-use-zones/livingstone-pluz.aspx
The strip along the divide will be called High Rock Wildland Provincial Park.
https://landuse.alberta.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/F%20Draft%20SSRP%20High%20Rock%20Enlarged%20Map%202013-10-21.pdf
Oh and they released the Castle PP map as well. Looks like they are allowing OHV north of Carbondale for the time being.
https://www.albertaparks.ca/media/6494585/castle-summer-trails-brochure.pdf
Map https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/aep-livingstone-pluz-summer-map.pdf
No trails.
Question...with the defender being 1/2" too wide for the green trails does it mean the defenders and do the purple trails and series trucks can do purple and green trails? ???
No, they will say you are not a "side by side" and ticket you.
BASTOORDS!
More awesome news. :(
Quote from: Red90 on May 09, 2019, 03:14 PM
Map https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/aep-livingstone-pluz-summer-map.pdf
No trails.
In April they released a new map and this one includes Northfork and Racehorse to the border. Northfork is July and August only. They also added a trail near Livingstone falls.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/livingstone-public-land-use-zone-georeferenced-maps
North Fork has been removed between the 2021 and 2022 Alberta maps.
Racehorse is now closed on the BC side.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/sports-recreation-arts-and-culture/outdoor-recreation/motor-vehicle-prohibitions/region-4/amcep_2021_final_report.pdf
QuoteThe BC/AB border Passes; Racehorse and Deadmans, are now closed year-round to motorized vehicles. The Access Guardian will promote educational awareness for this regulation change.
Go figure >:(
I confirmed with AEP that North Fork is closed. The closure is due to the creek crossing. No trails with water crossings are permitted.
Quote from: Red90 on September 28, 2022, 05:52 AM
I confirmed with AEP that North Fork is closed. The closure is due to the creek crossing. No trails with water crossings are permitted.
Later on I talked with AEP about putting in a new trail to avoid the water crossing. It requires around 200 meters of additional trail installed to make it happen. They told me that they are looking at it.
Well it sounds like there maybe hope yet...we'll see.
Perhaps we should build 200m of trail ourselves?
Quote from: headdamage on January 31, 2023, 12:03 PM
Perhaps we should build 200m of trail ourselves?
They indicated they were talking with "their partners" and I think that meant the CNP Quad Squad. I also talked with them (CNPQS) and they told me they were going to talk with AEP.
This is the spot just passed the current creek crossing and you can see the existing logging roads on the hill above. These lead back to a bridged crossing over the creek. Might be fun to go have a look one weekend in the spring.
https://goo.gl/maps/jhhk2j6bgCrKgoGu9
Back when I first started going to Northfork the trail was all on the North side of the creek. The current route with the stream crossing is a newer route.