Rocky Mountain Dirt Riders

Check out this link, also attached the file in case the link goes down.

http://cpaws-southernalberta.org/upload ... _2016).pdf

The Ecological Working Group (EWG) was convened by AEP in August 2016 and by late October had the "science" all gathered and summarized.
Looks like all our adversaries had a seat at the table long before the OHV community even knew what was happening.
I am hearing this is the scientific playbook the AEP Minister and her department are working from.

Has all my favorites (Lorne Fitch, Global Forest Watch, CPAWS, etc.) but not a single thing generated by AEP itself.
Expect more of this, as the process moves up the Eastern Slopes.

Very cool. Thank you

Quite possibly my favorite quote yet:

Vertebrates exhibit bilateral symmetry in that our left and right sides are reflections of each other. A and
high performing individuals within a population whereas high measures of asymmetry are associated
with lower quality individuals. Asymmetry accumulates during development in stressful conditions.
Here, the authors measure fluctuating asymmetry in samples of western fence lizards.
For three locations separated by at least 45km, the authors paired a local OHV site with a nearby
(<7.5km) non-OHV site with matching vegetation characteristics. At least 55 individuals were captured
and photographed at each site and they measured scales on both sides of the head to assess
asymmetry.


This is who we're up against folks, and their minds are made up.

Can the OHV clubs hire an environmental company to review the report and comment on it. Then perhaps have the results of that professional review posted in the media and ask the minister to comment.

This is really pretty scary and pathetic stuff.

It's 32 pages of titles and references from organizations with an obvious bias in data interpretation, and made even worse with nothing but cherry picked quotes that serve their agenda. When you quote 2 paragraphs, 50 pages apart, from a 300+ page paper, that should set off alarm bells for anyone, let alone those familiar with these types of academic papers. Even at that, almost half of their cherry picked quotes don't even support their assertions or are inconclusive.

This is the "science" that is being used to ban Albertans from accessing public lands. Shameful really...

Game was rigged absolutely and the ball is now rolling with some serious momentum against OHV use

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-new ... ists-group

So can everyone with a science degree get together and sign an open letter supporting responsible OHV use? I've got a Bachelor or Applied Science in Water Resources, and I can't be the only responsible OHV user with a similar education.

350scott wrote:So can everyone with a science degree get together and sign an open letter supporting responsible OHV use? I've got a Bachelor or Applied Science in Water Resources, and I can't be the only responsible OHV user with a similar education.

But you are "unique"

Studies of the Appalachia, California and Arkansas might be interesting, but to then apply it to the Castle and call it "science" is a misrepresentation. I don't see anything that shows there was any scientific study of the effects of OHV use in the Castle, just community surveys.

It's not science - it's politics being paraded as science. When government buys into that behavior, the result is poor regulation.

Speaking of pre-conceived notions, how about the 57 scientists who signed the public letter, not one of whom probably understands how any potential environmental effects (if there are any material effects in the Castle) can be mitigated through sustainable trail systems

Scientists using their public credibility to make a political statement against conservation is a sad state of affairs