Rocky Mountain Dirt Riders

This is one of the worst studies I have ever read, can I please get the 10 min of my life back that I wasted reading this garbage?

A scientific study this is not, it is BS. Poor attention to detail, very poor presentation of what little true sampling they actually did? Did your kid in grade 7 do the graphs for you? The whole thing is garbage.

Forestry.....Forestry.....Forestry!

The sediment loading by activity sector graph seems to be a misrepresentation of the real impact from harvesting activities. You cant have forestry activities without endless km's of transportation haul roads and porter trails so it is a cumulative sector(I guess it would not fit on the page). Never mind the loss of soil stabilizing root systems over thousands of Ha in the cut blocks. I still believe the biggest negative impact on water quaility is logging, you can try to implement mitigation practices all you want, in the end when you log a area you dramatically increase the runoff.

Wow report

I like markvfr and cedrics idea of a study that is more focused on empirical data and not heuristics and magic ball models. I don't believe in magic!

Respect the Land

This study is a complete joke, they should be studied for incompetence.As far as water quality goes, the bar graph on pg.38 shows agriculture (which cattle/grazing I'm assuming is under)is not the highest contributor,which it is by a mile. I believe SRD has data showing cattle waste and the sediment issues from them living in raparian areas 7 days a week to be the biggest contributor to water quality by huge margin.
As far as native fish in the area the bafoons mention a decline in species.What their not telling you is species like the native Cut throat trout are on the threaten species list and doing very poorly in Alberta - except for one area in the province, that being the Ghost/Wipor area where they are doing very well.

I could swear some of the photos in the slide presentation look like McLean, maybe these guy got lost trying to find the Ghost FLUZ. Creates a bit of a credibility issue when you use present very specific graphic examples to support conculsions in the study report, that are not in the study area!

Funny how the amount of timber harvest per year is flat, and so is the revenue generated by timber harvest. Do they not think the price of wood is going to increase in the next 50 years? Just another casual observation of holes in this study.

axel99 wrote:I could swear some of the photos in the slide presentation look like McLean, maybe these guy got lost trying to find the Ghost FLUZ. Creates a bit of a credibility issue when you use present very specific graphic examples to support conculsions in the study report, that are not in the study area!

I thought some of these pictures might be Mclean also....

Am I the only one who thinks reading and watching that slide has actually decreased my confidence in the human population?

Where is the data? I'm schooled in strick data to back up claims. They have absolutely none. I can make those graphs on microsoft paint and claim them to be true.

250 tonnes of human (I can't type without swearing. The word that I used is one of GC's 7 words that you can not say on television.) in a year? Serious? What do they think one cow does in a day?

IMO, anybody with any intellegence reading this would laugh and walk out of the presentation. Then again for every one person with some form of brains there are a 500 people who eat this (I can't type without swearing. The word that I used is one of GC's 7 words that you can not say on television.) up.

It's funny because I talk with my sister and her husband from time to time about this. One having their masters and the other their doctor's in environmental fields and they kinda laugh at the issue as well. I agree with the fact we are aren't doing great things to the environment, however it's not nearly as bad as some think. To top it off there are 100x worse things done by other people and industries that everybody turns a blind eye to, yet they pick on us for using a small slice of the pie.

Shibby! wrote:Am I the only one who thinks reading and watching that slide has actually decreased my confidence in the human population?

Where is the data? I'm schooled in strick data to back up claims. They have absolutely none. I can make those graphs on microsoft paint and claim them to be true.

250 tonnes of human (I can't type without swearing. The word that I used is one of GC's 7 words that you can not say on television.) in a year? Serious? What do they think one cow does in a day?

IMO, anybody with any intellegence reading this would laugh and walk out of the presentation. Then again for every one person with some form of brains there are a 500 people who eat this (I can't type without swearing. The word that I used is one of GC's 7 words that you can not say on television.) up.

It's funny because I talk with my sister and her husband from time to time about this. One having their masters and the other their doctor's in environmental fields and they kinda laugh at the issue as well. I agree with the fact we are aren't doing great things to the environment, however it's not nearly as bad as some think. To top it off there are 100x worse things done by other people and industries that everybody turns a blind eye to, yet they pick on us for using a small slice of the pie.

X2 If it wasn't for the 500 lemmings, it would be pretty funny.

[quote="Shibby!"] yet they pick on us for using a small slice of the pie.[/quote]

...and that is because we are 1) such easy targets and 2) generally not organized enough to combat this garbage.

Anyone with half a brain can see this study is not a study, its garbage.

Haha.

They must be aware this was posted on RMDRA because my original e-mail was sent from my personal e-mail and had no indication I was part of the RMDRA. I won't post my original e-mail as it wasn't very professional, but I didn't care. If somebody from the board wants to respond, it would be interesting to have these guys put on a presentation for the club at our monthly meetings so we can critique and hear their defining data to such claims they make. Never know, if we are polite they are maybe open to hear ideas from us, or suggest ways with which we can help improve their outlooks on the 50+ years.

Is there $$ behind their offer to present too?

--------------------------
Hi *****,

Thank you for the email. The fully referenced report will be made public in several weeks. I will forward you a copy as soon as it is released if you would like me to?

I would also be available to present the information to the Rocky Mountain Dirt Riders.

Sincerely,
Cornel Yarmoloy

Cornel Yarmoloy, M.E.Des.

Environmental Scientist

The ALCES Group

PO Box 86022, Marda Loop RPO

Calgary, Alberta T2T 6B7
--------------------------

Good on you Shibby! That's exactly what we need, more people like you too make these guy's accountable for these reports. Let's discuss having them present these results to the RMDRA

I would like to know what information they used to extrapolate their charts.

Typicaly in such a report there would be a reference to the source of the information.