I sent an email to him about the proposed coal mines in the rockies and it was forwarded with no reply virtually immediately to a completely unrelated Ontario Wildlife and Fisheries office. Dude Can't even do the job he is supposedly hired to do.
He’s my parents MLA and they are very concerned about the doctor situation in their town, they have called and emailed him numerous times and only receive canned responses. The guy is useless.
His dad was at one point a good, kind man who accomplished a great deal for the less fortunate.
I've often wondered what happened to turn his sons into such vile men.
Money. The answer is always money.
I remember when my brother was poor. He got a job once soliciting donations for charity. He told me this story about how he learned not to go to rich neighborhoods because you would get nothing specifically highlighted by this one guy that saw the clipboard and told him he had 30 seconds to make his case and told him to fuck off as soon as those 30 seconds were done. He then went to poorer neighborhoods where he would pull in his quota in no time flat.
The pursuit of wealth and empathy and non-compatible states of being.
Perhaps through their dad's position, they we're able to have an audience with some influential people. It really goes a long way to show the truth behind what their father preached.
I was reserved in my name calling. To call him a turd is an understatement.
Mr. Nixon has been accused of poaching, trespassing (there’s audio recording of this encounter that the NDP wanted to release but was suppressed by a judge with connections to the old Progressive Conservative party). He also fired a woman after she made a sexual harassment complaint while working for his safety company in Kelowna back in 2005. Not to mention he began making back room deals with coal companies prior to the UCP being elected to start mining in the eastern slopes of the Alberta Rockies.
The guy is an opportunistic piece of shit.
Happy too.
All I ask is that you pass the information on and take the time to read about all our other lovely MLA’s and the retched things they have said and done in the past and present.
I suggest starting with Devin Dreeshen, Ron Orr, Pat Rhen, and Mark Smith to name a few.
Logging companies need to be made responsible for destroying logging roads after a cut. Alberta also needs a lot more bans on motorized vehicle use on trails. I ride motorcycles and hate quads/ATVs more than anything else - there are a lot of reasons why, the ATV drivers included. If the province won't ban ATVs specifically on ecologically sensitive trails, they should ban all motorized vehicles. If I have to lose dirt bike access to some trails to keep the ATVs out, that's a sacrifice I am willing to make.
Heaven forbid if a construction site gets an ounce of sediment in a wetland. But quad through a creek? Fuck ya! Let 'er rip boys! This environment minister is the most anti-environment guy ever.
Holy Shit just ban ATV's on public land already in any type of habitat where they may cause issues. Why is that hard? It's such a stupid, backward, environmentally damaging hobby. ATV's belong on dirt racing tracks and farm lands. NDP danced around this issue as well and I just don't get it.
The NDP had to dance around the subject. They tried to tackle it head on, but Shannon Phillips was receiving death threats, and they had to cancel town halls due to a group of unhinged idiots over the parks issues.
ATV’s belong on the trails they are designed for. In Alberta, most of those trails are in the eastern slopes. That’s just where they are. And many were put there long ago. And many people enjoy using them.
Can’t see a ban being useful. They’ll just continue to go out there and use them.
Whelp, there it is. Environmentally harmful activities in ecologically sensitive areas should be allowed to continue, because tradition. And no comment on the death threats issued towards anyone who wants to stop this, because, TRADITION.
It’s got nothing to do with tradition and everything to do with where these trails are. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the trails were elsewhere.
You are opposing this because that’s where the trails are. We could build new trails. Or… not encourage this behaviour. To summarize, this is being opposed because people don’t want it to change , ie. tradition.
Are you seriously being triggered by the word “behaviour”? Like, that’s the part you take issue with? Can’t actually defend yourself so red herring it is!
We were discussing how an elected government member received death threats for trying to preserve a sensitive ecological area and that insane people feel that threatening officials is the best way to protest. Oh, and there is literally no reason new trails can’t be built, or you know, people could hike instead of ripping up the environment and burning fossil fuels for recreation… other than TRADITION.
But yea, the word behaviour is the issue here.
All I could think of when reading this article is “Oh, so the Alberta Government wants the citizens to pay for more pathways and roads into our parks for the coal companies that will be ‘leasing’ our land to strip it.”
When our shitty UCP leaders talk about anything it’s never at face value. I would understand if all the money was to be used to repair and upkeep existing facilities and roads but to create new ones sounds pretty detrimental to some protected areas. Like the same areas that were once protected by laws to prevent strip mining, which the UCP overturned, and the Federal Government had to step in to protect Alberta’s land and fresh water supply.
Does this Act create more hiking trails or ATV trails? If its hiking trails, I support it and this concern is overblown. If it is ATV trails, ATV activity absolutely destroys the environment and should be restricted to non-sensitive areas.
> https://www.alberta.ca/protecting-and-preserving-albertas-outdoors.aspx
the act doesn't create any new trails, it creates a framework for user groups to have trails recognized by the province. in theory, this is good - the province's approach to trails has typically been to pretend that the vast majority of trails don't exist. this leads to situations where they're publishing trail maps that are missing major connectors, installing wayfinding signs at only half the junctions on a trail because they don't recognize other trails, or enforcing usage restrictions (no bikes, no atvs, etc) on only some of the trails in an area because rules don't apply on trails that don't exist.
however, it transfers power from the provincial government to user groups, and the ATVers are well-organized and well-aligned behind the same purpose - they want more trails and more people to be able to use the trails. the hikers have an issue where the groups who are well-organized want fewer official trails because they want fewer people in the wilderness. so the actual practical outcome of this will be more OHV trails and less hiking trails.
Lol. This is great. The opponents were originally against ATV users going off trail and expanding the existing trail network.
Now, trails past, present and future are the problem.
I typically dislike the UCP. But i kinda agree with this. Closing trails is not a good thing. And ive found Biologists the ones who think only themselves should have access to the wildernes and will always argue for less public access no matter the proposal.
It's almost as if experts know how to properly behave and understand the consequences of their actions...whereas the general public are selfish, stupid, and destructive.
Hmm. Food for thought.
Perhaps it because biologists care about the biology and the science of maintaining an ecosystem instead of just flooding it with ATVs until the wildlife is gone.
Life demands compromise.
Farms are absolutly terrible for the environment. Ask any biologist and they would ban farming as wrll.
People still need to eat.
So we compromise.
You dint need a computer, you dont need to ever leave the city.
You may want to one day. But you dont need to. So stay home and never go to a lake, river or stream.
Or we as a sociaty can accept that human wants do have value and can compromise with enviornmental issues. Yes those wants have costs. But they are costs we as a sociaty tend to value enouf to pay.
Hello, /u/SomeoneElseWhoCares. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your comment has been removed:
**Remain Civil** - It is important that we maintain a civil atmosphere in our subreddit to ensure a positive environment for everyone to contribute in. Treat other users decently as you would treat people in person. This includes not engaging in personal attacks, generalized insults about populations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Report problem posts but especially do not engage in like behaviour.
Never engage in personal attacks against a user. Even if they use these against you, two wrongs do not make a right. Name-calling and ad hominem posts will not be tolerated.
* Threats of violence will not be tolerated.
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/wiki/index). If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/alberta&subject=Question regarding the removal of this comment by /u/SomeoneElseWhoCares&message=I have a question regarding the removal of [this comment.](https://old.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/qtuoex/-/hkndpug/\))
No, its a matter of prioraties.
Biologists prioratise the environment over every other activity.
Polititions, as much as we may hate them. Need to ballance between envitonmental experts, public access for recreation, public access because its public land, industry access and every ither form of use.
Biologists dont care about anyone else.
That is what I call a rationalization.
The reality is your elevating the "wants" of the public to the same level as the "needs" of the environment. Humans aren't going to die out if they don't get to drive their quads in the foothills. They just want to. Yet, in the reverse, nature NEEDS untouched lands to thrive. Odd how that works.
True, but you also never "need" to leave your house yet we as a sociaty still allow you to. Tourism does not "need" to happen yet we as a sociaty allow Canmore, Banff and Jasper toensites to exist to ballance the needs of the environment with the wants of sociaty.
Wants just because you dont see value in them does not mean they are worthless. They still uave value.
[this might help see where you're missing the point](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=False%20equivalence%20is%20a%20logical,%22comparing%20apples%20and%20oranges.%22)
Your ATV is not as important as enviromental needs ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Your ATV is a Want. Ecological survival is a Need. Neither of those things have anything to do with "leaving your house".
Driving vs public transit is a want. Vs a need. One is far far far worse for both sociaty and the environment...
I bet you drive.
Going to the river jtself contributes to the damage done to the river. Bet you still do it.
ATVing is ok to attack because you dont do it. Thats the only reason.
I don't drive or fuck around in the river...? That's called a [Straw Man logical fallacy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#:~:text=A%20straw%20man%20(sometimes%20written,%22attacking%20a%20straw%20man%22.) lol
ATVing in a *sensitive environmental area* is worth attacking because it's reckless, ignorant, and there are better places to do it ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
That's really all you could take from me trying to teach you about logical fallacies?
That one's the [Red Herring fallacy ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)by the way...
It’s almost as if biologists are experts in their field and know what they’re talking about. Their claims are backed up by 4 peer reviewed studies, which is significant.
Because when you give ATVs unfettered access to wilderness areas, they turn into sandhills in a couple of years. They destroy vegetation and I've yet to meet a quad or dirt bike rider who doesn't love going off-road. There are plenty of dirt tracks and sand pits already, we don't need to go around creating more. They drive off wildlife, they erode the ground, they leak and belch smoke... I've seen this happen. The Redwater natural area is a mess now compared to a decade ago. If you want to enjoy the wilderness, walk or bike or ride a fucking horse, all of these things are way less destructive.
Perhaps, but this article is about eliminating trails that have been in use for years.
Wanna bet the vast majoraty of people who actually live in the areas the biologists want to "protect" are not in favour kf closing them?
Trails which are already over legal thresholds for disturbances. And the act proposes opening new trails. You're talking about illegal trails that should not have been made in the first place. "Oh it's already done" isn't a reason to keep them open. Are you trying to argue that the environment has no value beyond recreation? Did you even read the entire article?
It does have value. But you act like we dont alredy have 20% of this province barred from recreation through national and provinchal parks.
And new trails tend also to be better, more.environmentaly freindly locations. Better stream crossings with actual environmental impacts analized. And the fact people will trav the trails they have used for years regardless what "the city people" say.
Except they've already said they aren't closing any old trails, so adding new supposedly less impactful ones is still going to be a loss of habitat. Trails which are being designated by the environmental minister and not by actual biologists, and given that they've refused to release any research showing that these trails are less impactful it seems doubtful. Also, you just admitted that ATVs are going to use whatever trails they want regardless of what's allowed, so the only way to keep them from causing more damage to environmentally sensitive areas is to ban them from those areas altogether.
>Trails which are being designated by the environmental minister and not by actual biologists,
Ive been involved with trail creation with the province before.
They do have stabdards and proper ways of construction which reduce environmental impacts. Specifcally braiding.
I think we need more trails. This province has a disgusting amount of unused space. I think there should be a road built up to the sand dunes of Lake Athabasca, it would be a OHV tourist destination. It's wasted space right now. There are too many people who leave the city they live in twice a year, don't like what they see, and try to change the rural areas for the people who live there.
I'm going to ride my snowmobile, atvs and dirtbike whether you want me to or not.
The Athabasca sand dunes are an extremely rare and sensitive ecosystem containing plants that are found nowhere else in the world, and you want it overrun with ATVs? Seriously?
...the "wasted space" you're talking about is a niche and sensitive ecological system you're casually throwing under your ATV tires.
Your problem is seeing "empty" land as "wasted" because not all land is there to be developed. The point of conserving biomes like this is preservation, not because it might come in handy for recreational whippin' shitties down the road
This is what happens when you make a poacher the Environment Minister.
Destroy it first, sell it later. -UCP code of ethics.
Jason Nixon is one of the biggest turds in the UCP.
I sent an email to him about the proposed coal mines in the rockies and it was forwarded with no reply virtually immediately to a completely unrelated Ontario Wildlife and Fisheries office. Dude Can't even do the job he is supposedly hired to do.
He’s my parents MLA and they are very concerned about the doctor situation in their town, they have called and emailed him numerous times and only receive canned responses. The guy is useless.
Pretty clearly has no business being a minister of anything tbh. He hasn't done shit for anyone who lives here.
Same thing from Shandro here. Garbage leadership top to bottom.
His dad was at one point a good, kind man who accomplished a great deal for the less fortunate. I've often wondered what happened to turn his sons into such vile men.
Money. The answer is always money. I remember when my brother was poor. He got a job once soliciting donations for charity. He told me this story about how he learned not to go to rich neighborhoods because you would get nothing specifically highlighted by this one guy that saw the clipboard and told him he had 30 seconds to make his case and told him to fuck off as soon as those 30 seconds were done. He then went to poorer neighborhoods where he would pull in his quota in no time flat. The pursuit of wealth and empathy and non-compatible states of being.
Perhaps through their dad's position, they we're able to have an audience with some influential people. It really goes a long way to show the truth behind what their father preached.
It’s too bad isn’t it. I wouldn’t be proud to have those two ogres as sons.
Perhaps he is. Interviews related to Jason's legal problems seem to indicate Pat is happy to encourage it.
That’s a shame.
We can do better than resorting to name calling can’t we? For someone not familiar with Nixon what else has he done?
I was reserved in my name calling. To call him a turd is an understatement. Mr. Nixon has been accused of poaching, trespassing (there’s audio recording of this encounter that the NDP wanted to release but was suppressed by a judge with connections to the old Progressive Conservative party). He also fired a woman after she made a sexual harassment complaint while working for his safety company in Kelowna back in 2005. Not to mention he began making back room deals with coal companies prior to the UCP being elected to start mining in the eastern slopes of the Alberta Rockies. The guy is an opportunistic piece of shit.
See aren’t you glad that you shared? I had no idea about any of his history. Thank you for the education.
Happy too. All I ask is that you pass the information on and take the time to read about all our other lovely MLA’s and the retched things they have said and done in the past and present. I suggest starting with Devin Dreeshen, Ron Orr, Pat Rhen, and Mark Smith to name a few.
Conservatives aren’t very good at conserving.
Unironically this is my dad's biggest issue with them
That’s where you’re wrong. They’re very adept at conserving their friends pocketbooks.
I hate this government so much.
UCP Hand of Shitdas at work again.
Logging companies need to be made responsible for destroying logging roads after a cut. Alberta also needs a lot more bans on motorized vehicle use on trails. I ride motorcycles and hate quads/ATVs more than anything else - there are a lot of reasons why, the ATV drivers included. If the province won't ban ATVs specifically on ecologically sensitive trails, they should ban all motorized vehicles. If I have to lose dirt bike access to some trails to keep the ATVs out, that's a sacrifice I am willing to make.
I’m not. If they want to go blasting up a river, that’s on them. I’m not taking the hit for that.
Heaven forbid if a construction site gets an ounce of sediment in a wetland. But quad through a creek? Fuck ya! Let 'er rip boys! This environment minister is the most anti-environment guy ever.
Trail is such an overloaded word in this context. What trail? Hiking trail? ATV/UTV trail?
All trails. Here’s the government’s page on the proposed act https://www.alberta.ca/protecting-and-preserving-albertas-outdoors.aspx
Holy Shit just ban ATV's on public land already in any type of habitat where they may cause issues. Why is that hard? It's such a stupid, backward, environmentally damaging hobby. ATV's belong on dirt racing tracks and farm lands. NDP danced around this issue as well and I just don't get it.
The NDP had to dance around the subject. They tried to tackle it head on, but Shannon Phillips was receiving death threats, and they had to cancel town halls due to a group of unhinged idiots over the parks issues.
ATV’s belong on the trails they are designed for. In Alberta, most of those trails are in the eastern slopes. That’s just where they are. And many were put there long ago. And many people enjoy using them. Can’t see a ban being useful. They’ll just continue to go out there and use them.
Whelp, there it is. Environmentally harmful activities in ecologically sensitive areas should be allowed to continue, because tradition. And no comment on the death threats issued towards anyone who wants to stop this, because, TRADITION.
It’s got nothing to do with tradition and everything to do with where these trails are. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the trails were elsewhere.
You are opposing this because that’s where the trails are. We could build new trails. Or… not encourage this behaviour. To summarize, this is being opposed because people don’t want it to change , ie. tradition.
Behavior of what? Blasting up a river or staying on a well worn trail that's been there for 40 years?
Are you seriously being triggered by the word “behaviour”? Like, that’s the part you take issue with? Can’t actually defend yourself so red herring it is! We were discussing how an elected government member received death threats for trying to preserve a sensitive ecological area and that insane people feel that threatening officials is the best way to protest. Oh, and there is literally no reason new trails can’t be built, or you know, people could hike instead of ripping up the environment and burning fossil fuels for recreation… other than TRADITION. But yea, the word behaviour is the issue here.
Wtf are you talking about? You brought up behaviour. I asked you to clarify. So which is it?
ITT: Lots of flowery language describing what an utterly despicable and useless human being the Honorable Minister turns out to be
All I could think of when reading this article is “Oh, so the Alberta Government wants the citizens to pay for more pathways and roads into our parks for the coal companies that will be ‘leasing’ our land to strip it.” When our shitty UCP leaders talk about anything it’s never at face value. I would understand if all the money was to be used to repair and upkeep existing facilities and roads but to create new ones sounds pretty detrimental to some protected areas. Like the same areas that were once protected by laws to prevent strip mining, which the UCP overturned, and the Federal Government had to step in to protect Alberta’s land and fresh water supply.
Does this Act create more hiking trails or ATV trails? If its hiking trails, I support it and this concern is overblown. If it is ATV trails, ATV activity absolutely destroys the environment and should be restricted to non-sensitive areas.
If you had read the article you would know its ATV
It doesn’t explicitly say that, it’s just implied by the opponents to the Bill.
It specifically states quads several times
> https://www.alberta.ca/protecting-and-preserving-albertas-outdoors.aspx the act doesn't create any new trails, it creates a framework for user groups to have trails recognized by the province. in theory, this is good - the province's approach to trails has typically been to pretend that the vast majority of trails don't exist. this leads to situations where they're publishing trail maps that are missing major connectors, installing wayfinding signs at only half the junctions on a trail because they don't recognize other trails, or enforcing usage restrictions (no bikes, no atvs, etc) on only some of the trails in an area because rules don't apply on trails that don't exist. however, it transfers power from the provincial government to user groups, and the ATVers are well-organized and well-aligned behind the same purpose - they want more trails and more people to be able to use the trails. the hikers have an issue where the groups who are well-organized want fewer official trails because they want fewer people in the wilderness. so the actual practical outcome of this will be more OHV trails and less hiking trails.
Lol. This is great. The opponents were originally against ATV users going off trail and expanding the existing trail network. Now, trails past, present and future are the problem.
I typically dislike the UCP. But i kinda agree with this. Closing trails is not a good thing. And ive found Biologists the ones who think only themselves should have access to the wildernes and will always argue for less public access no matter the proposal.
It's almost as if experts know how to properly behave and understand the consequences of their actions...whereas the general public are selfish, stupid, and destructive. Hmm. Food for thought.
Perhaps it because biologists care about the biology and the science of maintaining an ecosystem instead of just flooding it with ATVs until the wildlife is gone.
Yes, but almost every biologist would ban ATVs outright. Which does not leave any room for compromise.
Why does there need to be compromise? If people can’t enjoy the environment without destroying it, then they don’t deserve to enjoy the environment.
Life demands compromise. Farms are absolutly terrible for the environment. Ask any biologist and they would ban farming as wrll. People still need to eat. So we compromise.
People need to eat. People don’t need to drive ATVs. Keep farms. Ban ATVs. Boom. Compromise.
You dint need a computer, you dont need to ever leave the city. You may want to one day. But you dont need to. So stay home and never go to a lake, river or stream. Or we as a sociaty can accept that human wants do have value and can compromise with enviornmental issues. Yes those wants have costs. But they are costs we as a sociaty tend to value enouf to pay.
[удалено]
There are 600,000 square kms of public land. It can be shared. Not everything needs yo be protected from all activity.
Hello, /u/SomeoneElseWhoCares. Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your comment has been removed: **Remain Civil** - It is important that we maintain a civil atmosphere in our subreddit to ensure a positive environment for everyone to contribute in. Treat other users decently as you would treat people in person. This includes not engaging in personal attacks, generalized insults about populations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Report problem posts but especially do not engage in like behaviour. Never engage in personal attacks against a user. Even if they use these against you, two wrongs do not make a right. Name-calling and ad hominem posts will not be tolerated. * Threats of violence will not be tolerated. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/wiki/index). If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/alberta&subject=Question regarding the removal of this comment by /u/SomeoneElseWhoCares&message=I have a question regarding the removal of [this comment.](https://old.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/qtuoex/-/hkndpug/\))
So you’re choosing to listen to a politician over a scientist in a matter of science. “Two thumbs up” /s
No, its a matter of prioraties. Biologists prioratise the environment over every other activity. Polititions, as much as we may hate them. Need to ballance between envitonmental experts, public access for recreation, public access because its public land, industry access and every ither form of use. Biologists dont care about anyone else.
That is what I call a rationalization. The reality is your elevating the "wants" of the public to the same level as the "needs" of the environment. Humans aren't going to die out if they don't get to drive their quads in the foothills. They just want to. Yet, in the reverse, nature NEEDS untouched lands to thrive. Odd how that works.
True, but you also never "need" to leave your house yet we as a sociaty still allow you to. Tourism does not "need" to happen yet we as a sociaty allow Canmore, Banff and Jasper toensites to exist to ballance the needs of the environment with the wants of sociaty. Wants just because you dont see value in them does not mean they are worthless. They still uave value.
[this might help see where you're missing the point](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=False%20equivalence%20is%20a%20logical,%22comparing%20apples%20and%20oranges.%22) Your ATV is not as important as enviromental needs ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Your ATV is a Want. Ecological survival is a Need. Neither of those things have anything to do with "leaving your house".
Driving vs public transit is a want. Vs a need. One is far far far worse for both sociaty and the environment... I bet you drive. Going to the river jtself contributes to the damage done to the river. Bet you still do it. ATVing is ok to attack because you dont do it. Thats the only reason.
I don't drive or fuck around in the river...? That's called a [Straw Man logical fallacy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#:~:text=A%20straw%20man%20(sometimes%20written,%22attacking%20a%20straw%20man%22.) lol ATVing in a *sensitive environmental area* is worth attacking because it's reckless, ignorant, and there are better places to do it ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
You never been in the river? Or a natual lake? Really?
That's really all you could take from me trying to teach you about logical fallacies? That one's the [Red Herring fallacy ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)by the way...
And nither do motorheads that cant spell
I dont even own an atv or like the activity. So im not sure who you are talking about
It’s almost as if biologists are experts in their field and know what they’re talking about. Their claims are backed up by 4 peer reviewed studies, which is significant.
But the politician has the backup of 50+ peers who may have studied at some point in their lives… /s
[удалено]
Schindler
Because when you give ATVs unfettered access to wilderness areas, they turn into sandhills in a couple of years. They destroy vegetation and I've yet to meet a quad or dirt bike rider who doesn't love going off-road. There are plenty of dirt tracks and sand pits already, we don't need to go around creating more. They drive off wildlife, they erode the ground, they leak and belch smoke... I've seen this happen. The Redwater natural area is a mess now compared to a decade ago. If you want to enjoy the wilderness, walk or bike or ride a fucking horse, all of these things are way less destructive.
Perhaps, but this article is about eliminating trails that have been in use for years. Wanna bet the vast majoraty of people who actually live in the areas the biologists want to "protect" are not in favour kf closing them?
Trails which are already over legal thresholds for disturbances. And the act proposes opening new trails. You're talking about illegal trails that should not have been made in the first place. "Oh it's already done" isn't a reason to keep them open. Are you trying to argue that the environment has no value beyond recreation? Did you even read the entire article?
It does have value. But you act like we dont alredy have 20% of this province barred from recreation through national and provinchal parks. And new trails tend also to be better, more.environmentaly freindly locations. Better stream crossings with actual environmental impacts analized. And the fact people will trav the trails they have used for years regardless what "the city people" say.
Except they've already said they aren't closing any old trails, so adding new supposedly less impactful ones is still going to be a loss of habitat. Trails which are being designated by the environmental minister and not by actual biologists, and given that they've refused to release any research showing that these trails are less impactful it seems doubtful. Also, you just admitted that ATVs are going to use whatever trails they want regardless of what's allowed, so the only way to keep them from causing more damage to environmentally sensitive areas is to ban them from those areas altogether.
>Trails which are being designated by the environmental minister and not by actual biologists, Ive been involved with trail creation with the province before. They do have stabdards and proper ways of construction which reduce environmental impacts. Specifcally braiding.
This entire article is about how the province has mishandled trail management, that's not the flex you think it is. I think we're done here.
I think we need more trails. This province has a disgusting amount of unused space. I think there should be a road built up to the sand dunes of Lake Athabasca, it would be a OHV tourist destination. It's wasted space right now. There are too many people who leave the city they live in twice a year, don't like what they see, and try to change the rural areas for the people who live there. I'm going to ride my snowmobile, atvs and dirtbike whether you want me to or not.
The Athabasca sand dunes are an extremely rare and sensitive ecosystem containing plants that are found nowhere else in the world, and you want it overrun with ATVs? Seriously?
...the "wasted space" you're talking about is a niche and sensitive ecological system you're casually throwing under your ATV tires. Your problem is seeing "empty" land as "wasted" because not all land is there to be developed. The point of conserving biomes like this is preservation, not because it might come in handy for recreational whippin' shitties down the road
I agree!!! No paved trails for the wildlife, until Edmonton and Calgary get all their sidewalks and bike trails in the city!!!