Land use zone additions, changes.

[SpeedyJ]

I'm coming at this as a 4x4 outsider, but I do have lots of trail access experience from the mountain bike side of thing. The details are different, but there are many broad parallels. I've also spent a great deal of time in the US (op to 3 months a year for the better part of a decade) and seen varying approaches to land access down there.

It seems to me that the best approach is to recognize the demand for trail access and make balanced accommodations to those demands. I do believe that some level of management is desirable and necessary.

A few thoughts on areas that have shaped my opinion.

There is an area outside of Rifle Colorado that is wide open to cattle, 4x4, ATV, dirt bike and mountain bike traffic. There are virtually no designated trails and as a result the area is a moonscape. By any estimation the area is a disaster. Without  trails the features and challenges are ill-defined in spite of some pretty fun topology.The only winner is the lowest common denominator that is happy to do donuts all day.

At the other end of the spectrum (other then Wilderness areas where all mechanized travel is banned) is the area around Powderface and Moose mountain in K-Country. Until recently this area only allowed mountain biking on legacy trails - trails that were established by equestrians and loggers a very long time ago. This meant that all mountain bike traffic was restricted to trail that were ill-suited to mountain biking. Many trails went straight up drainages, across creeks (unnecessarily) and had ridiculously steep grades (modern trails follow contour lines). In short, the very rules that were supposed to be protecting the landscape forced users to take the worst possible routes, maximizing impact (stream damage and erosion) while limiting access (many areas were wet well into spring or too steep for intermediate riders).

The places that seem to work best are the ones that are managed best. New trails can be designed, built and maintained and traffic can be directed away from particularly sensitive areas.  If an area has a vision - single track for mountain bikes, ATV trails for ATVs, etc.... It is much easier for users  to self police. Without a vision of some sort each user gets to choose what they feel is acceptable - ATV's doing donuts at you favorite fishing/camping spot, dirt bike on mountain bike trails, etc....

Shutting access down completely never seems to end well, the pent up demand manifests itself as poorly built illegal trails that can maximize damage. Illegal trails are also impossible to maintain, it's hard to raise funds and volunteer labour to build a bridge on an unsanctioned trail. I'm thinking of mud holes that grow and grow and trails that become increasingly braided over time. Maybe that's acceptable to some folks, but when I go to the effort of getting out of town it's not what I'm looking for.

I don't want it all to turn into a theme park either, I like exploring, the off-road parks of the UK simply don't appeal to me. I think that properly built trails can be be difficult, I'd hate to see trails dumbed down to make them safe for anyone in a RAV4.

In a separate rant, I'm at a loss to see the logic in closing access to public users when ranching, O&G and forestry seem to get the run of the place.

[Red90]

In a separate rant, I'm at a loss to see the logic in closing access to public users when ranching, O&G and forestry seem to get the run of the place.

The logic is that those activities supply money to the government for use of the land.  It is pretty easy to understand.

Closure of these areas has nothing to do with the environment or science.  It is completely due to politics.  The creek discussed above has had fish impacts studies performed.  Those studies did not find an impact from vehicle crossings.  Unfortunately, AEP (Alberta Environment and Parks) is very corrupt.  Most decisions are based on kickbacks instead of science..

[SpeedyJ]

Fair enough on the economic impact of commercial operations. My focus tends to be on West Bragg Creek, so my my thoughts are based on the impact that Spay Lake Sawmills has had on what is an obviously important recreation area. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where the economic benefits of forestry was weighed against the economic (and other) benefits recreation, they may not be direct, but the cumulative benefit of retail, tourism and hospitality should count for something more, especially since recreational activities are sustainable. Modern mechanized forestry simply doesn't employ the number of people that it once did. I think that the benefits of forestry, in this area anyway, have been overstated (unless you happen to profit directly from Spray Lake Sawmill).

Other then that I think we're mostly agreeing here. I'm all for rational, science based decision making.

[Red90]

The West Bragg area is forestry and not a protected area.  It is not a PLUZ or a park.  Spray Lakes pays money to the government for the leases.  The area is specifically for resource utilization.  If you want it to be a park or recreational area you need to convince the government to change its designation.  They don't want to do that because the forestry company has paid in advance and based it long term economics on having a certain amount of land available.

[Matt H]

I've given up on AB. It's just too difficult to wheel legally and what little is left is not worth the effort. Perhaps that's what the powers that be have intended all along or perhaps it's just worked out that way. Plenty of walking trails for outdoor enthusiasts but AB is a bloody big place and I'm not hiking across it.

So I will just go elsewhere. In AB, if I'm required to drive 15 hours north just to find a crappy 3 mile long trail to drive, I may as well drive somewhere nicer south or west.

My 2c.

[Red90]

There are still a lot of places open Matt.  You just need a ph.D in land use management to know where to go.  Most of the mountain areas closest to you are completely free.  It is just the areas near Calgary that get the brunt of the regulations...

[Red90]

Here is the study on sediment loading into the creek.  http://esrd.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/surface-water-quality-program/documents/WaterQualityWaiparousCreek-Feb2006.pdf

To paraphrase...
1) A study was made purposely to come to the conclusion that OHV use is causing sediment increase.
2) The data could not prove a causation link of OHV use to sediment loading.
3) OHV use probably causes it anyway because that makes sense....

It is embarrassing to call oneself a scientist these days.

[Matt H]

Yeah, I suppose there is still the Crowsnest Pass area. I just get disheartened when all I hear are trails being closed.

I like your summery of the land management study. It would even be funny if it were not true!

[Red90]

Yeah, I suppose there is still the Crowsnest Pass area. I just get disheartened when all I hear are trails being closed.

Keep in mind that a lot of the area south of the highway may or may not become a park soon....  Make me want to do a decent trip there this summer as a last kick at it.  There are a few trails we have not investigated.

http://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/about-us/public-consultations/archives/enhancing-the-protection-of-the-castle-area/

[Trevor]

I gave up on Alberta.

I just go to Moab now for wheeling...it's infinitely better anyway, they genuinely like 4-wheelers down there, and you get to see how things can work when they're done properly.

Next year I hope to make it down to the Black Hills in South Dakota and check out the big September rally they have. Its supposed to be a lot of fun.

The quaders, and their infinite trail of beer cans, can have Alberta.



 

[binch]

Too much monetary and political clout in the SW corner of Alberta.     It's all about control of the land and resources.....and long term cattle leases.

Heck....I've first hand experience of a minister and director of the AFS sitting in the back seat of a suburban, driving along the highway, looking out the window at the spruce, pine, poplar forest go by and make a decision on moving forest management boundaries just so they could over commit the wood supply in one area.    And the director did it all while scratching the base of his brain, with his finger jammed up his nose!!!!!

Unfortunately Alberta has a long history of management without regard for the sciences.   Cowboy, shoot from the hip decision making!     Moab is an incredible sensitive area with regards to vegetation, soil and water course management.  Yet they have been managing the area very very well for some time.    The users themselves, as well as the local take great pride in maintaining the area and keeping it clean.   BC has trails in the sub-alpine that are very nice...but well regulated (as they should be).   Go off the trail and get caught you face very stiff penalties.   The Whipsaw and JEEP trail are two expamples of this.     Unfortunately the camp areas on the Jeep trail (I think?) closer to the trail heads were filthy as it's close enough to bring in tons of part junk and leave it behind.    We have an incredible resource at our door step but there needs to be some good thought an regulation going into it's use.    No reason to shut it down....but we do need to manage it responsibly.

Rant over....base clear!