Alberta Land Rover Enthusiasts Club Forum
General => Non Technical Discussion => Topic started by: headdamage on April 17, 2021, 01:29 PM
https://cochranenow.com/articles/random-camping-in-the-eastern-slopes-will-no-longer-be-free (https://cochranenow.com/articles/random-camping-in-the-eastern-slopes-will-no-longer-be-free)
HOLY CRAP!!!!!! No services what so ever but we'll be happy to charge you for this privilege..... Does anyone remember when there was fee for random camping in Alberta? I do remember when the AFS used to have organised campsites, and they were self administered (10 bucks in an envelope in the registry box, at the gate.) But they at least had camping pads (road crush and a bitch to put tent pegs into) and an out house.
Use the braniac that came up with this idea?!?!!? >:(
This was part of the UCP election promise, so should not be a surprise. Page 85 of their election platform. https://albertastrongandfree.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Alberta-Strong-and-Free-Platform-1.pdf
QuoteApply a mandatory $30 trail permit fee to Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) and camping trailers to pay for restoring and creating OHV trails and preventing damage in Alberta's great outdoors, and to hire additional enforcement officers
However, there does not appear to be anything in the budget that shows increased spending for "preventing damage in Alberta's great outdoors, and to hire additional
enforcement officers".
...maybe it's all the "big boots" on the trail. Dunno. :P
Quote from: Red90 on April 18, 2021, 06:31 AM
However, there does not appear to be anything in the budget that shows increased spending for "preventing damage in Alberta's great outdoors, and to hire additional
enforcement officers".
That's the rub. The policy makes sense if the funds are used as advertised. The Communists had a different path...roll everything up under Parks and cut-off access. Much worse.
The real risk here is that the funds channel to general revenue. This is, in effect, a PC party now. The Wildrose portion has been slowly worked out via policy changes. The PC's were masters of that sort funding two-step and feifdom creation.
Caution is definitely warranted. For the time being though, I have no issues paying at pittance for access yearly.
I have been following this development through the hunting clubs and the Leg Bill announcements. It will make sense if the money gets used on the parks. Time will tell.
My concern is the registration process.
"AlbertaRELM" is the platform used for hunting and fishing licensing and tags. It has improved last year and it is recognized for ability to carry digital licenses and permits. Off course as long as you have cell coverage!
The random camping permit will be sold through that site. So you have to create an account.
I was not clear if the fees are based on per person or per group on camping spot.
Either way this will apply to the hikers, the off-roaders or the equine sports.
Does BC have similar setup? How about Saskatchewan?
The only purpose this serves is to get money into the general revenues. I can almost guarantee there will be no benefits gained from the fee. I wouldn't mind if they were to bring back something like the old AFS campgrounds where there was some servicing done for basic amenities. But they have all me privatised and now what is being offered a whole lot of nothing for your money. Another bit of OOOOOPS brilliance....... >:(
Quote from: binch on April 18, 2021, 02:46 PM
The only purpose this serves is to get money into the general revenues. I can almost guarantee there will be no benefits gained from the fee.
I can't go that far yet, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
Fortunately the push to limit widespread access has not re-emerged (yet). That was a big push under the NDP for widespread closers via Alberta Parks. The work I was doing with the Alberta Parks field folks to keep Ruby Trail open was driven largely by moves by the higher ups to restrict access. From Grand Cache down to the Big Horn plans were in the works to close the bulk of the areas to motorized access. Internally those in the field were trying to keep a few main trails open (Ruby Falls was one of them). Their fear, rightly, was that without access folks just go out illegally, and that makes enforcement and maintenance much harder., and damage much greater.
Regardless, one needs to keep an eye on this, and see if some of those moves to close areas re-emerge (less likely) or funnel these funds into general revenue (more likely). Government needs to be watched, regardless of stripe.
...
Quote from: headdamage on April 18, 2021, 11:52 PM
That newtube Covid is a Hoax video is terrible, those guys are major quacks!
Er, they say nothing about it being a hoax. Actually they state emphatically it is not. There's lots of misinformation on the CCP virus out there, but it's not from those two.
That said, if you watched the entire video you gained additional information not readily available via the MSM fear and lie machine, and made your own decision. That's a good thing. I will say nothing more on it in this thread. If you want to discuss it further, I'm happy to take it to private messages.
I raised two questions with Minister Madu this evening regarding the back country proposed fees?
1- Are the collected funds going in main revenue or are they going towards enhancing the parks services?
Answer: Funds are not going in main revenue. Funds are going towards enhancing services for Albertans in the parks.
2- Booking camping services on provincial, federal goes through two portals. Back country camping permit goes through a third portal. Would the government consider unifying the process under one portal so its easier for campers to access and for tourism?
Answer: Great idea and it makes sense. It will be presented to the Minister of the environment, Jason Nexon.
Cheers
Emad.
Good job Emad.
So next year, the question for 1 just needs to be a follow-up..."ok, now prove it for us. " ;D
Quote from: B-Red on April 20, 2021, 07:08 PM
Funds are going towards enhancing services for Albertans in the parks.
Have a look at where the park boundaries are and what is not. There's already a lot of land not labelled as parks included in the fee area. They have a long way to go to able patrol and enforce these areas, with all the cut backs made in the forest service, parks and rec and fish and nightlife.
Andrew...how many forest guardians were patrolling the area you worked and when was that?
Umm. These fees are not for parks. This is for crown land camping. Why would the funds go into parks?
Quote from: Red90 on April 21, 2021, 05:20 AM
Umm. These fees are not for parks. This is for crown land camping. Why would the funds go into parks?
That's likely the result of the amalgamation of the various departments under Alberta Parks back during the previous government. SRD used to look after Crown land I believe, but they're under Alberta Parks now.
It is under the same minister, but this land is not under "Alberta Parks". These fees should have no connection to "Parks". They are planning other fees for parks.
Step 1. Never believe anything coming out of a politician's mouth. I would love to see where in the budget it shows this revenue being spent.
https://www.alberta.ca/public-lands-camping-pass.aspx
Quote*The proposed pass will not apply to:
private, municipal, or federally owned lands; Provincial Parks, Wildland Provincial Parks, Provincial Recreation Areas; Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Heritage Rangelands,
Natural Areas. All acts and regulations will continue to apply including the Recreation Access Regulation that applies to agricultural dispositions.
[ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]
Quote from: Red90 on April 21, 2021, 08:27 AM
It is under the same minister, but this land is not under "Alberta Parks". These fees should have no connection to "Parks". They are planning other fees for parks.
Step 1. Never believe anything coming out of a politician's mouth. I would love to see where in the budget it shows this revenue being spent.
https://www.alberta.ca/public-lands-camping-pass.aspx
Quote*The proposed pass will not apply to:
private, municipal, or federally owned lands; Provincial Parks, Wildland Provincial Parks, Provincial Recreation Areas; Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Heritage Rangelands,
Natural Areas. All acts and regulations will continue to apply including the Recreation Access Regulation that applies to agricultural dispositions.
[ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]
SRD is part of Alberta Parks now as far as I understand it. But Alberta Parks is not simply "Provincial Parks" anymore. Pluz's, which this includes, are under that group as an example.
Also, this could simply be Emad mistyping as well.
Insofar as never believing a politician, I think I made it pretty clear my views of government (not just politicians, but they of course apply as well) up thread. Trust nothing, verify everything.
That said, I see comments here from all of us that are skeptical, and all are grounded in the fact that we have insufficient resources for wild space management and access controls...reduced personnel, etc.
We have a plan proposed that says it will direct resources to do that very thing. Yes, that should have oversight. No, I don't believe for a second it will necessarily happen as proposed.
But if not this, then what? If politicians and governments cannot be trusted (and they absolutely cannot) what is the solution? Do nothing? Get government out entirely? It cannot be more government because they cannot be trusted, or at minimum the politicians leading them cannot. We have already established that is a full stop.
So what's the alternative. Both you and Bill have voiced uncompromising criticism. I'm very curious what you would propose as an alternative?
I see the comments regarding government and trust issues. I suggest that you compare this to Lebanon (as a democracy) or Egypt. Or maybe Spain.
We are pretty good here so far.
Quote from: Trevor on April 21, 2021, 09:13 AMSo what's the alternative. Both you and Bill have voiced uncompromising criticism. I'm very curious what you would propose as an alternative?
There is nothing we can do. We are complaining. To be realistic, I rarely do vehicle camping in this province anymore. The continual increase in regulations has led to overuse as too many people are squeezed into ever decreasing spaces. It is easier to drive two hours west.
All that I asked is if they are using the money, why is it not in the budget? If they were planning to spend it and not keep it, it would be in the budget. Unless I misunderstand the working of governments, nothing gets spent unless it has a budget. We are talking tens of millions here. It should be easy to spot and it should be easy for them to show us where it is.
Quote from: Red90 on April 21, 2021, 02:36 PM
There is nothing we can do. We are complaining. To be realistic, I rarely do vehicle camping in this province anymore. The continual increase in regulations has led to overuse as too many people are squeezed into ever decreasing spaces. It is easier to drive two hours west.
All that I asked is if they are using the money, why is it not in the budget? If they were planning to spend it and not keep it, it would be in the budget. Unless I misunderstand the working of governments, nothing gets spent unless it has a budget. We are talking tens of millions here. It should be easy to spot and it should be easy for them to show us where it is.
Fair enough John. I think we're on the same page regarding governments showing where they plan to put the money, and proving that it in fact has gone there. I mentioned that in my response to Emad.
Regarding BC, no argument here. I spent as much time camping there last summer as I did in AB.
Quote from: B-Red on April 21, 2021, 11:00 AM
I see the comments regarding government and trust issues. I suggest that you compare this to Lebanon (as a democracy) or Egypt. Or maybe Spain.
We are pretty good here so far.
That's because we keep holding their feet to the fire. They screwed things up a while back though when they took away our 6-guns and replaced them with lawyers. It's been going downhill ever since. ;D
There are no details in the budget, but the overall plan for the ministry is budgeting a decrease in both direct expenses and operating expenses. They mention increases in fees (including this one) will account for $20 million in revenue. So if this new revenue is used within the department, they are cutting that much expense from somewhere else.
[ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]
This is under operations.
[ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]
Here's the Environment & Parks snippet from the expense section of the full budget (pg 116). They give a bit of a breakdown on some of their expense shifts. In the revenue section they mention $20 million increase expected for Environment and Parks from new and increasing fees, but nothing broken down past that (pg 89)..
You can find the entire document here...
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/6f47f49d-d79e-4298-9450-08a61a6c57b2/resource/ec1d42ee-ecca-48a9-b450-6b18352b58d3/download/budget-2021-fiscal-plan-2021-24.pdf
Expense Snippet
Environment and Parks
The ministry's 2020-21 operating expense forecast is $867 million, which
reflects an increase of $335 million from Budget 2020, primarily to support
the ministry's economic stimulus plan funded by the Technology Innovation
and Emissions Reduction (TIER) fund. The ministry's operating expense
is budgeted at $499 million for 2021-22, which is $368 million, or 42 per
cent lower than the 2020-21 forecast reflecting the one-time funding that
was provided for TIER in 2020-21. Shifting portions of program delivery
and administration to third parties for Wetland Replacement and Caribou
Restoration activities will reduce expenses by $10 million in 2021-22 and
$18 million in each year thereafter, without impacting the overall programs or
services.
In addition to delivering on government's commitment to TIER, Environment
and Parks is responsible for providing Albertans and visitors opportunities
for nature-based experiences and outdoor recreational activities through
access to provincial and urban parks, public lands, and providing educational,
interpretative and experiential programs and services. Budget 2021 includes
$81 million in operating expense for Alberta Parks, to address increased
recreational activity on Crown Lands and support the vision for a parks system
managed in partnership with municipalities, Indigenous communities and nonprofit societies – integrating environmental stewardship with recreational access
and conservation.
To support government's commitment to improving data collection on
environmental outcomes related to Parks and public lands, Budget 2021
includes $13 million for the Digital Regulatory Assurance System over the next
three years. This regulatory transformation will shift applications for nonenergy development activities (for example fertilizer, rock and cement, mineral,
Expense | Fiscal Plan 2021 – 24 117
sand and gravel, water use for developments, livestock grazing) to a new online
system. The transformed system will support economic development and Red
Tape Reduction and an outcomes-based regulatory approach.
Note fellows that the bill was introduced ... not approved yet to go in full implementation. Maybe that's why it does not show clearly. However, it's a good point to check within next 12 month.
For the views we have in Alberta, even $100 a year for a camping pass is a great deal
Maybe the Feds could run it, we could have a tent and sleeping bag license, with a national tent registry, black tents would need a special restricted license, and secure storage for all camping gear, just incase some one steals a tent and goes camping without a license, on second thoughts i am good with the province running it , even if the funds are used to buy new Range Rovers for ministers.
[ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]
[ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]
[ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]
[ This attachment cannot be displayed inline in 'Print Page' view ]
I'm all in favour of back country user fees as long as the money collected can be used to create, maintain and regulate the back country areas. We've seen it for years where some trails have been put into highly sensitive areas with little regard for damage and erosion. I've said it for years....I'd be happy to pay a $100 a year for a back country pass so I could run well managed trails like BC's Jeep trail or the Whipsaw or Jeep trails. I would very much love to see something like that here in Alberta. Shut down trails that are getting over used or damaged, Install bridges, contour trails to topography, strict supervision/enforcement on the trails, particularly in the areas above 6000'.
Now that I would get behind ;)
Following many decades of the provincial government screwing over the off road community in Alberta at every turn I would be extremely skeptical. People seem to forget much too quickly. It is like being in an abusive relationship, always hoping they will stop beating the crap out of you.
Seeing them make statements that 10s of millions of dollars are to be spent improving things with zero details of how is very suspicious. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but there is a 99% chance it is just another tax.
If they were actually planning to do something productive, would they have not consulted the off road community? Has anyone, anywhere seen this? No, of course not. Have they talked to the people on the ground? It is highly doubtful. Are they talking out of their asses? Almost guaranteed.
Quote from: Red90 on April 22, 2021, 06:52 AM
Are they talking out of their asses? Almost guaranteed.
Lol, exactly.
its $33.25 plus GST for the yearly pass to rough camp on crown land in most of the province. That's $34.91. Less than two green bills.
Apparently, this is less than a fishing license, the fuel to get to campsite (one way). You've each saved at least $1900 or so over the past year by having your pub and restaurant nights ended, sports games over. Nearly $35 should easily be found.
Many of the outdoor areas in these parts are poorly maintained, largely due to the clowns here that leave garbage, deep ruts, or anything else in the bush. Someone has to pay for that cleanup, it should be the persons using the facility of crown lands.
4x4's are fairly ubiquitous up here, often a small guy in a big jacked up truck, lots of high revs. Overcompensation perhaps. Much of the damage in acessible backcountry around here comes from some of these users.
One could follow the UK's lead, and simply tax engine displacement. This crown lands camping fee could alternately just be added to vehicle registration renewal on all 4x4 vehicles without farm plates. If one can't access the rougher areas, they don't pay.
it might be fairer, dunno.
It just keeps getting better. $90 annual pass for any vehicle enter Kananaskis country.
Soon their will be toll fees to leave your house. Small government, my ass.
Quote from: Red90 on April 27, 2021, 08:21 AM
It just keeps getting better. $90 annual pass for any vehicle enter Kananaskis country. Cost appears to be per vehicle, so if you drive more than one, you get to pay twice....
Soon their will be toll fees to leave your house. Small government, my ass.
What the hell?
Okay, press conference over so a website is up...
https://www.alberta.ca/kananaskis-conservation-pass.aspx
QuotePass is not required:
Ghost area
McLean Creek Public Land Use Zone
McLean Creek Provincial Recreation Area
Fisher Creek Provincial Recreation Area
QuotePersonal vehicles
Day pass - $15 (registers one vehicle)
Yearly pass - $90 (registers up to 2 vehicles)
I should add.. Nixon also said there is still another fee coming for ATV use. They are having trouble finding a way to do it where it is not obvious that they are double charging for the same thing. This is why the Ghost and Mclean Creek are exempt. There is another fee coming to cover the off road driving, in order to fulfill their election promise.
I can live with a trail fee if we get clarity on where we can go
Oh, now that is almost certainly a tax directed at the folks around Calgary as they are the dominant users. But K-country has always thought of itself as a national park. ;)
Quote from: B-Red on April 27, 2021, 07:51 PM
I can live with a trail fee if we get clarity on where we can go
I said it before and I'll say it again......"I'm good with paying a trail fee as long as they money goes back into the trail system...NOT the general revenue stream!"
One thing that I don't think has been discussed and should be on people's minds. Currently, the government has no legal right to charge for general access to crown land.
In order to get around this issue, there is a proposed bill (Bill 64) currently in second reading. https://www.assembly.ab.ca/assembly-business/bills/bill?billinfoid=11912&from=bills
In is an amendment to the Public Lands Act, https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P40.pdf
The basic gist of the amendment changes the wording to allow them to charge fees for ANY use. The current act more or less provided limits to fees for entering a PRA or for use of trails within a PLUZ. The new wording removes all of these limits and allows fees for anything they choose on public land.
This is the meat of the new text.
QuoteRent, fees and other charges
9.1(1) Subject to any regulations made under subsection (3), the Minister may, by order,
(a) prescribe or provide for the manner of prescribing
(i.1) fees relating to the use or occupation of public land,including the carrying on of activities on public land,
And that is about it other than adding a paragraph stating the user accepts all liability.
- There are no limits on what the fees apply to.
- There are no limits to the fees themselves.
- There is nothing requiring how the fees are to be used.
It is a revision to allow unlimited application of fees with no control of how the money is spent beyond the bill preamble (which has no legal standing).
That's a good point John. I will check it more in detail on my end.
Cheers
Jason and the golden fleece.......I think there maybe a movie in that ;D
Bill 64 was passed on Wednesday without amendments. They can now charge people for access to any crown land, for any reason and use the money in any way they choose.
Pass required to enter Kananaskis as of Tuesday. https://www.alberta.ca/kananaskis-conservation-pass.aspx
Camping pass required for Tuesday to camp on crown land. https://www.alberta.ca/public-lands-camping-pass.aspx
I've got 0 problem with funds directed to trail maintenance, oversight, etc. $30 combined with my fishing license is still far cheaper than it costs me for a simple fishing license in other jurisdictions. Hell, the fact that I have to pay tax on what I freaking EARN is a far far greater affront.
It all comes down to where the funds go. As with all things government, politicians and the top bureaucrats and their fiefdoms are the enemy, never trust them to do what they pledge.
Quote from: Red90 on May 29, 2021, 06:32 AM
Bill 64 was passed on Wednesday without amendments. They can now charge people for access to any crown land, for any reason and use the money in any way they choose.
This is for the eastern slopes area below Grande Prairie.....isn't it...?
A plan like no other.....USER FEES, and don't give them a damned thing for it. >:(
Quote from: binch on May 29, 2021, 11:51 PM
This is for the eastern slopes area below Grande Prairie.....isn't it...?
Yep.
https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/ep-map-public-lands-camping-pass-area.pdf
https://esrd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ef80eca3fccb431fb7fa0c5d8a2e7d76
The Conklin area and north of Edmonton is still free for camping.
Brûlée lake and Ruby lake are for a fee.
Still, low compared to everything else
Quote from: binch on May 29, 2021, 11:51 PM
Quote from: Red90 on May 29, 2021, 06:32 AM
Bill 64 was passed on Wednesday without amendments. They can now charge people for access to any crown land, for any reason and use the money in any way they choose.
This is for the eastern slopes area below Grande Prairie.....isn't it...?
A plan like no other.....USER FEES, and don't give them a damned thing for it. >:(
Well at least it is still open. Notley and her Maoist clan were going to be shutting down most of these areas completely. That was how the work at Ruby came to pass, a few smart folks lower down in the department were trying hard to keep at least a couple trails open.