Article from the Crowsnest Promoter

Hiding truth does not make it go away

Where does this guy get his facts?? He is extremely biased and ignorant to boot. I'm also surprised that a letter that long made it into the "letters to the editor " section.

Brian L. Horejsi, PhD.
Wildlife Ecologist Craighead Environmental Research Institute (CERI) science advisory board

Brian received his Doctorate at the University of Calgary (1976) where he studied the mother - young behavior of bighorn sheep subject to a high level of human interaction. He previously had received a Bachelor of science degree in Forestry from Montana State University (1965). He has worked for the Alberta Forest Service, the Yukon Wildlife Branch, as a research associate at the University of Calgary, and as a consultant to the oil and gas and mining industries.

Most recently he has worked for a variety of non governmental organizations. He founded and operates the Speak Up For Wildlife Foundation in Calgary, Alberta. His professional and activist efforts include the impacts of habitat fragmentation, roads and industrial development, agriculture and public regulatory process on wildlife populations. He has engaged in field work with moose, caribou, wild sheep, and black bears. Much of his past and current work has focused on grizzly bear populations. CERI collaborates with Brian on grizzly bear conservation efforts in coastal British Columbia, Montana, and in the international trans-boundary regions of Idaho, Montana, Alberta and British Columbia.

Horejsi is also a former vice-president of the Alberta Wilderness Association.

Horejsi's published articles, in the news, and on the web.

Dr. Brian Horejsi has published another related article in the Globe and Mail today. Essentially grizzlies are threatened, ATVs and industry are bad.

click here

Quote::

"The No. 1 impact to grizzly bear populations is [vehicle] access," said Mr. Richards, who lives in Airdrie, just north of Calgary.

Quote::

"All of these things essentially are making what is fundamentally or innately good habitat, virtually insecure and unusable for bears and that is the crux of the matter," said Mr. Horejsi.

You can bet this will all converge when Indian Graves and the C5 go into an emergency land-use plan this year.

If Horejsi and friends can invoke the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA), we will have to learn to fight at a whole new level. Consider what happened with Mountain Caribou in the BC interior this spring, especially around Revelstoke. With SARA, precautionary principle overrules logic and fact.

The perfect storm is on us. Could we be nearing the end of the annual Dutch Creek?:

Quote::

Ted Morton, minister of sustainable resource and development, is scheduled to meet on June 20 with a grizzly bear recovery team that includes scientists, members of the department, representatives from Parks Canada and other groups.

I wonder what the "other groups" are? Gadzuk, ironic how we (non-tree huggers) turn on ourselves as the hunting group throws the vehicle groups to the wolves in your article.

Aye, you can see it coming like a freight train in Saskatchewan. But a perfect "storm" is an unpredictable force of nature, what we're up against is highly organized and staged.


Re blaming trucks... divide and conquor, right out of gang-green's playbook. They can't fight us all at once, so pick on the weak first. Trucks, then dirt-bike single-track, then ATV, then hunting, then industry. Look at the history of the Kananaskis park, Bighorn, Ghost-Waiporous. Now Indian Graves, C5, and then back to McLean is my best-guess. I'm already seeing "global warming" raised as an excuse to close trails.


Minister Morton said at the CNP Stewardship day that responsible ATV groups were not the problem, it's those darned big trucks.

While I wince to see that kind of statement, it's true that some places cannot support heavier machines. A 400 HP truck with 44 inch lift belongs in the mud pits, not up McGillivray Creek or Alexander Creek. It only takes one such indescretion to close a trail.

There's lots of responsible jeep & truck owners, but nobody remembers them.

gadzuk wrote:

... There's lots of responsible jeep & truck owners, but nobody remembers them.

Also overlooked were their stewartship activities as well.

Both groups (quads / trucks) are in this together...and working together.

Why is it that we hardly here from these people when they build a new highway, chop down trees and divert water for a new golf course, add a thousand houses to a city without regards to water usage and waste disposal, etc. Where ever there is a major city, there is a major source of water. There used to be open fields and forest there, but I guess, in their own mind, they find justification in this. I agree that there are many disrespectful, drunken morons operating Atvs and other off-road vehicles out there. There is alot of them on the highways too, do we shut them down also. We have ample space allocated for parks and reserves. If you have major center (such as Calgary for example), you have to expect and accept the fact that people are going to populate and utilize the areas close to the city. They, or someone, need to deal with the individuals that are using these areas wrongly. Leave the responsible ones alone, if anything, help them out. The individuals like, Dr.Horejsi, need to get along with the rest of the planet.

If you ride in the backcountry you see the devastation caused by the logging and mining (no offense Pete). Makes our impact look like ant tracks versus a herd of wild elephants. Isn't it funny how "they" choose to target the little guys vs the organizations that do by far the most damage.

What's up with that? I believe I know the an$wer but I'd like to hear our govt. say it.

Ronin wrote:

If you ride in the backcountry you see the devastation caused by the logging and mining (no offense Pete). Makes our impact look like ant tracks versus a herd of wild elephants. Isn't it funny how "they" choose to target the little guys vs the organizations that do by far the most damage. What's up with that? I believe I know the an$wer but I'd like to hear our govt. say it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is the answer

A woman from Vancouver Island, who was a tree hugger and an
anti-hunter, purchased a piece of timberland. There was a large
tree on one of the highest points in the tract.

She wanted a good view of the natural splendour of her land, so she
started to climb the big tree. As she neared the top, she
encountered a spotted owl that attacked her. In her haste to
escape, the woman slid down the tree to the ground and got many
splinters in her crotch.

In considerable pain, she hurried to the nearest doctor. She told
him she was an environmentalist and an anti-hunter and how she came
to get all the splinters. The doctor listened to her story with
great patience and then told her to go into the examining room and
he would see if he could help her.

She waited three hours before the doctor reappeared. The angry
woman demanded, 'What took you so long?'

He smiled and then told her, 'Well, I had to get permits from the
Environmental Protection Ministry, the Forest Service and the
Ministry of Land and Water Management before I could remove old-
growth timber from a recreational area.

Rafter wrote:

Ronin wrote: If you ride in the backcountry you see the devastation caused by the logging and mining (no offense Pete). Makes our impact look like ant tracks versus a herd of wild elephants. Isn't it funny how "they" choose to target the little guys vs the organizations that do by far the most damage. What's up with that? I believe I know the an$wer but I'd like to hear our govt. say it. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is the answer

I agree. I'd really like to hear one of the government folks explain to me why this is OK.

Ronin, it`s a matter of the lion picking out the small, weak animals out of the herd and attacking them first.

Government sees jobs, taxes, necessity. Can't build houses, schools & hospitals without trees (lumber) and mining (steel) and oil (fuel).

Most of those industries are regulated such that they have to restore places through tree planting, reclamation and so-on when they're complete. Mining companies have to put up a multi-million dollar bond before they start.

We build the occasional bridge.

Our form of sport is viewed as choice / optional / unnecessary. And ATVers aren't quite so good with media as logging & mining and oil companies. Industry spends millions on PR and media consultants. And so does gang-green.

Less than 2% of riders belong to an ATV association, and a really stupid few keep riding through creeks, leaving garbage, and getting hurt so the media runs with THAT message.

Horejsi doesn't pick on industry because his pet-cause and specialty is us. But he isn't just opposed to ATV, he wants a general reduction in humans using the backcountry.

Enviro-legal groups like Sierra Legal Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council and West-Coast Environmental Law specialize in attacking industry. Sierra Legal Defense just opened a brand new office in Edmonton, they see lots of donations to fight the oil-sands. Wildsight attacks mining in SE BC, as does the North Fork Preservation society in Montana.

Luckily resource extraction and ATV are fairly compatible, it would be a good idea for us to co-develop a defense strategy with the big guys with the deep pockets.

A = ATVing impact to environment
B = logging/mining impact to environment
C = acceptable level of impact

I propose that A < B. Just go out there and look.

Apparently B< C because nobody is stopping logging/mining in the same areas that are being shut down to ATV'ing due to impact.

So based on the above, how can A > C?

I agree Gadzuk, ATV'ers should work with/hide behind the huge shadows of these 2 industries. If an area is important to Grizzlies then somehow big industry has found a loophole. If not wouldn't they be forced to stop and mine/clearcut other places? I'm talking about our specific areas:Indian Graves, CNP, Waiprous, Maclean Creek. If resources weren't pulled from them any more, those industries (and the ones that use these resources) would still survive. Ideally I'd like everything to continue as is, in a responsible fashion. However since that doesn't look like its going to happen we may need to start looking at arguments like these. Get them to tell us EXACTLY why its OK for these industries to do their thing and not us. You never know, maybe the premier would sign up to the province occasionally cleaning up trail systems (or whatever it is big industry is doing to get away with it) to keep them open for future generations.

I'm interested in what the general consensus on the following points is:

If an area is closed to ATV'ing due to environmental impact should it also be closed to resource extraction?

This also implies the corollary:

If an area is open to resource extraction should it also be open to ATV'ing?

looking forward to hearing lots of thoughts on this.