Land Use Framework Updates...

[crazy2wheeler]

With regard to your previous post on the recreational off road user license issue, there are a number of ways to the end of that road. We would just have to use a model that's already in place from another industry (such as the pleasurecraft industry).

The spinoff benefit would now be a pool of funds that could be managed to ensure the clubs have funds for trail maintenance, signage, equipment rental if needed, etc.

It would be great if this was a source of funds for trail maintenance or education or enforcement. Even if it does not provide and cash for these other activities I think there would definately be some benefit (and perhaps make enforcement that much easier) from making persons have special "off-road" licenses.

However, don't get too excited as the cost of these licenses would likely have to be quite high in order for the revenues generated to exceed the cost of administration. For example, a $25 annual fee would I doubt cover anything more than administration - unless the government is going to pay for the operating costs of the program - which I would think is unlikely.

Just something to keep in mind, and perhaps come up with an efficient way to implement such a licensing plan.

[Dragon997]

Another question?
What about kids? If I remember correctly, you have to be over 16 to operate a pleasure craft.
The OHV industry is very big for children, look at our races, 61 kids at the last race.
Do they have to study and pass a test?
And Derek is dead on on the cost of the program.
Do you need a licence to ride a horse, mountain bike? NO.
Mark me down as No to licensing, YES to user fee.
Access for all, and treat us all equally.
Johnathan

[thumper-darryl]

Johnathan. You will be glad to hear that at Rec Corridors, a room full of lawyers shot down liscencing for select user groups. All or nothing. And when the numbers were crunched liscencing did not provide anywhere enough funds to do anything. But all angles need to be looked at AGAIN.

[DIRTTV]

I am told the reason why user fees do not work.....
If someone charges you a fee for something they then become liable for curtain outcomes. For example: if tim hortons sells you a coffee and it is to hot. If you spill it, tim hortons COULD be held liable. I am not saying this is forsure but it makes sense to me. The way things are today is people have to be able to sue someone if something bad is done to them. Seems to be the way things are nowadays.

[thumper-darryl]

Doug You are correct. That was one of the reasons some of the lawyers went NO_NO_NO.

[BradC]

Everybody;

I appreciate your contribution. There's a lot of good information here!

Keep it coming.

Brad.

[BradC]

Good Afternoon Everyone.

Over the past couple of months I have been in attendance at the various Land Use Framework "Growth And Resource Management" group meetings, participating in what I hope will be a sound contribution to future land use here in Alberta.

I'm pleased to announce that the final report is now in final draft form, and am comfortable that it can be provided to those of you who are interested.

It's important to note that this group was mandated to provide guidance at a very high level, as opposed to lobbying for specific trail access. The recommendations are in the report, and you will see that those recommendations do not condemn ohv/recreational use, but rather suggest an infrastructure whereby ohv/recreational use is acknowledged on an even basis with other land uses here in Alberta. The report also suggests a framework whereby individual regions have "regulated autonomy" (kind of an oxymoron here) to ensure the balance is maintained with regard to land use.

One of the most prevalent (at least in my mind) outcomes is the concept of "zero net loss", which means for example, if a trail is to be opened, then another trail must be reclaimed in an area, thereby ensuring our land inventory is available for use to future generations. This also means regulation, and regional accountability for use/abuse.

One consensus was overwhelmingly clear: Government was NOT to have a role in how the land is managed (too much political sludge). As you will see, it was suggested that government only play a role in implementation of the framework and it's rules, incentives, and penalties. The framework itself is to be implemented and governed by a body independent of the GofA.

Anyway, in closing, this was a great group to work with - very respectful and professional - and if other areas of the Land Use framework go as smooth, I believe our future as recreational users, has a much brighter outlook.

Respectfully,

Brad Churchill.

[MotorEd]

BradC,

Thank you for your time, and a huge thanks for keeping us in the loop.

Regards,
Brad Elder

[BradC]

**********
THIS WAS EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO ME BY MORRIS SEIFERLING FROM THE MINISTER'S OFFICE. AS YOU WILL SEE, THE LANDUSE FRAMEWORK IS STILL MAKING IT'S WAY THROUGH DUE PROCESS. AS I'M PART OF ONE OF THE WORKING GROUPS, I RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS, AND HAVE PROMISED THE RMDRA THAT I WOULD PASS INFORMATION ON AS I BECOME PRIVY TO IT.
**********


Many of you have been wondering about the status of the draft Land-use Framework and whether there would be an opportunity for members of the stakeholder working groups to continue to participate in the process to complete the final framework. Although the draft framework has not completely finished the internal government review process, we anticipate it being released in May for final comment and review with the intent to finalize it this fall.

As requested, here is a little more information.

The only thing that is working its way through the government process is the draft framework. The draft framework is our attempt as government to identify what our intentions are based on the feedback we have heard and the process we have used to develop the draft.

This next phase of consultation is to hear whether Albertan's think we got it right. If there are things that we need to change or improve as a result, we will strive to do so. The Minister specifically asked that the Stakeholder Working groups be invited to participate in this review.

By the end of May you would have seen the draft framework. The intent of the stakeholder sessions is to develop and consolidate any suggestions into a report hat can be discussed with the Minister in June. The first session will probably start late on the first day with an update and dinner, the following days will be the opportunity for stakeholder working groups to develop their responses to the draft framework.

The June session will be focused around stakeholder working group presentations and discussion with the Minister.

************
One other note: Thank you to Dylan Cartwright and other members of the RMDRA for your upcoming efforts with the trail system at Maclean and Ghost. I'm doing what I can for our sport, and am glad that others are too.

Brad Churchill

************

[BradC]

Good Afternoon All...

This morning the Alberta Government released a draft copy of the Land Use Framework I have had the pleasure of assisting with for the last year (mostly last summer in the working group sessions).

Please find attached a PDF copy of the Land Use Framework for your perusal, along with an official Government of Alberta Press Release dated today.

I am happy to have been able to contribute to our sustained recreational activities in this province, and encourage others to step up and actively play a part.

Every little bit makes a difference.

Respectfully,
Brad Churchill