NSRP Regional Advisory Council Report

honda75

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
27
Reaction score
18
Location
red deer
That's a hard document to read. What I can take from it is that there will be a few more parks, but its in the western Bighorn where there aren't any motorized trails anyway. Did I miss something? Lots of riled up folks out at Dovercourt the other week being told closures are imminent but I don't see anything to that effect in the advice.
 

Cal Rakach

Active member
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
50
Reaction score
218
Location
Sundre
The RAC report was released after the Dovercourt event. This report is only advice to the government...the government can take it or leave it.
We did not know what was being recommended.
What was said at Dovercourt is that a Wildland Park is a possible outcome...still is.
The RAC report actually validates what was said at Dovercourt. Many of the same solutions.
We suspected that all or part of the Bighorn will be a conservation area... Conservation area is open to interpretation. ie; PLUZ vrs Park
 

layout_rat

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
4
Reaction score
8
Location
Hinton
Through the process, is it thought that the PLUZ designations are not providing enough protection and a Wildland Park is needed, or is it more that a park designation touches at the heart strings and sounds more protective than a PLUZ? With the current PLUZ(s) in place and the multiple seasonal restrictions and access corridors is this not achieving many of the protective measures needed or does the Wildland Park plan to further restrict activity? I have seen (because of work) some of the proposed park areas by CPAWS and Y2Y that are absurd and would like to close down significant areas even well east of the Forestry Trunk Road, but have more questions on what a Wildland Park would be like such as how much more restrictive than what is currently in place. I'm thinking it would be similar to Willmore where a select few with horses make it into a few more remote parts of the area, the odd group hikes in a little ways and for the most part no one is able to access a majority of a new Bighorn Wildland Park. I've been to a few of the different areas of the Bighorn over the years and have always found there is a lot of inaccessible and remote areas that very few individuals ever make it to even with the current protective designations in place.
 

Cal Rakach

Active member
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
50
Reaction score
218
Location
Sundre
A PLUZ provides the same protections available in a WildlandPark. Also all the recreational uses ina PLUZ, is available in a Wildland Park. The issue for me is now we are dealing with a different department thatis not known to be OHV, hunting, trapping friendly, if still allowed. And further burdened with Parks rules that addlittle/no value to the desired outcomes.
Put into jeopardy is the Bighorn Standing/Steering Committeeand monitoring governance model. Despite some it’ short comings at this time, this governance model is the best we have inAlberta, in particular, by providing the community engagement component. The RAC report recognizes this.
Currently the Bighorn Backcountry is regulated by theBighorn Access Management Plan (2002) under the Public Lands Administrationregulation. All environmental, socialand economic outcomes are currently being address by the PLUZ…that why it wasput in place in 2002. PLUZ have land managementtools that a park does not.
The RAC report says the high priority issues are in the eastside of the watershed and the Bighorn is a low priority….because it is alreadybeing dealt with. RAC members recognizedthis.
It’s a good report, something we can work with.

 
Top Bottom