In his presser, @JasonNixonAB stated that the fees address services, usage, and conservation.
All of those apply here. It's a free for all and suffers from heavy, destructive usage where rules aren't being followed.
Exhibit 1 - OHV users ripping up creek beds and wetlands 2/6
If anything, OHV users should be paying more than the rest of us for this activity. There is a huge need for repair and mitigation. McLean Creek is a silty mess. But instead, they're being rewarded.
Exhibit 2 - trail destruction leading to runoff of mud and silt everywhere 3/6
McLean Creek is also popular for random camping. As someone who does this, one of the key things is "leave no trace." That doesn't apply here.
There are abandoned campsites everywhere, some very close to water.
Exhibit 3 - garbage, spent shells, and firepits full of trash 4/6
It is sad that this beautiful spot has been abandoned to OHV users.
There is almost no signage and what was there is gone or destroyed.
It's clear this area badly needs exactly what the user fees are meant to address.
Exhibit 4 - damaged signs and more destruction 5/6
If @JasonNixonAB was serious about addressing usage and conservation this area would be first on the list.
Nowhere else in Kananaskis sees this level of destructive use without any attention or mitigation. It is being condoned and rewarded while the rest of us are punished 6/6
Since this is taking off a bit, please consider donating to @ABWilderness who have been advocating for better protection of our wild spaces and increased regulation of OHV use for decades. Their work is more important now than ever:
Finally, I don't just want to single out OHV users (prob too late). Every group has bad apples so don't be afraid to call people out.
See leash dogs in a sensitive areas?
See bikers where they shouldn't be?
See peoe feeding wildlife?
See people going off trail?
Call it out.
Minister Nixon's response is woefully inadequate and ignores the public interest.
Like with coal, it's clear people don't like the fee and are tired of OHV users getting preferential treatment to destroy our public lands #AbLeg #abpoli
Courts are busy. Remands are busy. Probation is busy. Lawyers are busy. Police are busy.
And they are busiest with high volumes of minor crime that turn into long-term cycles of criminality due to circumstances and laws that trap them in a way that's hard to break out of 2/
So instead of addressing the roots, we continue to use the justice system as triage to create quick solutions with limited effectiveness over time.
But why isn't it effective? Let's follow a hypothetical from beginning to end 3/
1. "This charge is wholly unexpected and inexplicable." Well, no. Any kind of tampering with a judge HEARING YOUR OWN CASE is hugely aggravating and will almost always attract criminal consequences, especially when you admit you did it.
1a. Cooperating with the Law Society is well and good but they are not the police, who have charging discretion. Turns out they decided this was serious enough to lay charges.
Messing with a judge is the epitome of "fuck around, find out" and Mr. Carpay found out.
This is the former Ricardo Ranch. It's 570 hectares and was previously part of an Area Structure Plan engage.calgary.ca/RicardoRanch
As the maps show, environmentally sensitive areas are acknowledged, but barley mentioned in the plan, with few concrete promises of protection. 2/
Regardless, there will be 16,000-20,000 people planned to live in this sensitive, intact area. To see what the future holds, you just have to look across Deerfoot 3/
The history of conservation and environmentalism in Alberta is something that isn't spoken about enough but there's been some amazing people that have done amazing things in our province.
One of the most significant actions involved the Oldman River Dam - long🧵 1/ #abpoli
You might remember that the Oldman River was central to recent opposition to the Grassy Mountain Mine, but this wasn't its first time in the spotlight.
What started as opposition to damming the river in the 1970s led to a historical shift in Canadian environmental law 2/
The Alberta government had big ideas for Alberta rivers, including mega projects to divert water for irrigation and sale to the US.
Beginning in the 70s, Alberta Environment began looking into suitable sites for multiple dams that would have huge effects on watersheds 3/
1/ Read the Trails Act yesterday and many people smarter than me have already commented, but here's a thread about what it means for the environment and if it's actually good.
2/ The Act essentially gives the Minister unfettered power to create trails on any and all public land across Alberta. There are no checks on the Minister's power - regulations don't even apply.
Jason Nixon's friends want a new trail somewhere? Like magic, he can make it.
3/ We heard a lot about more enforcement, protection, and oversight.
But the Act requires none of this. All sections about trail management are permissive. The Minister MAY do something but they don't have to do anything.
These trails are being thrown to the proverbial wolves.
With a new city council now sitting in #yyc, it would be great to see some renewed conversations about the status of biodiversity and natural areas in the city, which is suffering as we continue to grow.
Going to add to this thread with ideas and concerns #yyccc 1/
To start: the 80,000 LED streetlights that were installed as of 2017. Great for energy efficiency, bad for bugs and other creatures (as our normal streetlights, but these are worse).
Dead bugs and moths = bad for biodiversity 2/ #yyccc
Groups like the @weaselheadpark are undertaking projects to create nocturnal preserves within our city, which would benefit so many species. It would be awesome to see something like this supported by city council and implemented in our city 3/ #yyccc