Land Use Framework Updates...

[BradC]

Good evening.

I'd first like to thank you, the executive of the RMDRA for your vote of confidence with regard to my representing the off road motorcycle community in the upcoming Land Use Framework work groups.

In previous discussion with many members of this community, executive members of other clubs, and the executive of this club I believe I now have a very good handle on what it is that we are looking for, and will do my best to ensure our interests are well represented.

Having said that, I have just been given a wealth of information from the group, and anticipate more being couriered to me in attempt to bring me up to speed with the issues at hand. I have also been given a schedule of meetings and locations as well.

Meeting Dates are as follows:
June 25th
July 8-10
July 26
Aug 8-9
Aug 29
Sept 10
Oct 05

The facilitator and support staff who have already been in contact with me have been very helpful and proactive in ensuring I have access to information necessary to bring value to the group. They are also aware that due to prior committments which have me out of the province on June 25th and July 9-10, will see me not attending those meetings. All other meetings however have been entered into my daytimer and I have committed fully to attending them. I will however be attending the evening session of July 8th.

The group has also provided me with access to their internet portal to assist in the communication with other group members.

I will also report back to the RMDRA via this thread shortly after each of the dates with an update as to the progress that's being made.

As you will see below, the communication sent to me by the group facilitator this evening is very positive and proactive in sharing information. I have already been in contact with him asking questions regarding the level of detail they are looking for with regard to proposed solutions:

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

Hello Brad, and welcome to the working group.
We are at the very early stages of the working group. The group has met only once before for only a couple of hours. The first substantive meeting is scheduled for this coming Monday. At that time we will be working out some of your questions.
I believe that you will receive a binder that will provide you with the background information available to date. Additional information will be provided on the request of the working group.
As to the level of detail, we are pursuing broad, high level strategies. I will direct you to the questions in the discussion guide under Tab 4 of the binder. They will give you an idea of what we are looking for. Beyond that, it will be up to the group. This will be the primary purpose of our meeting on Monday.
You will, of course be provided with summaries of the meetings, and an opportunity to share your comments with the group through the web portal.

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

Thanks again for allowing me the opportunity to help. Be sure to visit this thread for future updates as they occur. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns, I would kindly ask that you approach the RMDRA executive with them, such that they can then compile them and forward them to me. The reason for this is because of the sheer number of potential questions and suggestions I may be faced with, I want to ensure that everyone's concerns are at the very least acknowledged. I may not have the ability to appropriately respond to everyone.

Respectfully,

Brad Churchill.

[BradC]

Please find attached below, the overall scope and proposed deliverables to the Government of Alberta for the Land Use Framework working groups:

BACKGROUND:
The LUF is intended to identify an approach to manage public and private lands and
resources to help achieve Alberta’s long-term social and economic goals, based on a
foundation of sound environmental management. When completed this framework will
provide the overall direction and decision-making framework to manage land use activities
and help address growth on Alberta’s land base. The LUF is intended to apply to public and
private lands in Alberta with the exception of federal lands such as national parks.

DELIVERABLES:
Working groups are expected to complete and provide a report on proposed strategies and
actions for their particular focus area to the GoA by October 5, 2007. This report will include
specific short, medium and long-term strategies, actions and options based on the summaries
of present and previous stakeholder and public input received to date.

In identifying the range of strategies and actions, the working groups will be expected to
identify their implications, the potential timeframes for implementation. (e.g., at individual,
local, regional and provincial scales.) and a proposed priority or priorities, including any
different priorities for a particular timeframe or scale. Where consensus cannot be achieved
on a proposed action or strategy, it is expected that the working group will identify and
describe a set of potential options.

[Dobi]

great stuff! Can't wait to hear the updates on the progress the group makes.

[Waxy]

Thank you Brad.

I for one really appreciate the effort on your part. I know that with my schedule, that kind of a commitment would be extremely difficult, and I don't imagine it is any less so for you.

I look forward to you doing excellent work on our behalf and to your reports.

Waxy

[dirtyboy]

Brad, Awesome! I figured it makes sense to keep this at the top since it is an important topic that we will be returning to over and over.

I'm looking forward to your progress Brad.

[BradC]

Update on the Land Use Framework Meetings:

As it appears, the first couple of meetings were just preliminary “get to know you” meetings. The first one I attended, which was this past Thursday, was where “rubber met the road” so to speak. My attendance was timely.

As mentioned before, the primary goal of this assembly is to formalize a recommendation (framework) to the Provincial Government about how public lands should be managed. This includes the increase and/or decrease of activity in certain areas, capping activities in certain areas, and the establishment of a system whereby people could apply for specific uses of the land and/or natural resources.

This was my first meeting and I must say that everyone was VERY respectful of the needs/wants of others. I must also say that there were some very intelligent people in my particular group – right from city planners, to presidents of oil and gas companies, well educated agricultural and equestrian representation. Our role is to in the next couple of months, formulate a plan that can be combined with the other working groups, which the government will use to manage the various uses of land in the area.

The plan is being summarized by an independent consulting company hired by the Provincial Government to facilitate and guide progress.

In fact, there were 5 key questions on the land use survey which we dealt with as a group specifically on Thursday.

So far our recommendation is unanimous in that the provincial government can not arbitrarily cap/limit activities (such as been done with recreation in Ghost and Indian Graves). Further to that, our recommendation is that an independent panel/committee be established which has the teeth to make decisions on land use based upon the following criteria:
1. Regional recommendation / application for use
2. Sound science
3. Social and Economical foundation
4. Recreational need.
5. Federal limitation and regulation.

This panel would work similar to the EUB already in place with overal provincial legislation and regulation, and then regional representation with limited decision making power (note the word "limited"). It was also interesting to observe the overwhelming opposition to using elected officials to sit on the board/committee. Consensus was that elected officials would impose their own agenda, and in some cases build little empires, thereby defeating the purpose of the independent and impartial governing committee.

Having said that, we also unanimously recognize that each region must have a certain degree of flexibility in some decisions as to how the land is used. HOWEVER, those decisions are governed by an overall framework and legislation, AND a “zero net gain” approach to land use as established when the committee/board is formed. “Zero Net Gain” in essence means that if a parcel of wild land is claimed for urban development, then the equal amount of land in the region must somewhere be reclaimed as wild land. (this is a very simple example).

It is also recognized by the group that there needs to be an established appeal process whereby if local applications for land use are turned down, the applying party can then appeal to the overall governing provincial body.

I realize that this is a very high level approach, and doesn’t “directly” deal with opening or closing trails. However after listening to everyone, and speaking directly with the minister present during our meeting, I am confident the Provincial government is sincerely interested in making things better for everyone, and is working hard to achieve some type of balance.

Our next meeting is over two days at the beginning of August, where at that time we will solidify the primary context of our part of the proposal.

In conclusion, I came away Thursday tired, but confident that things are moving forward in a very impartial and progressive fashion.

What I really liked was the "Zero Net Gain" philosophy. If we as a recreational community cut a new trail, why shouldn't we also work on an area that's been abused to help reclaim it? It totally makes sense.

Brad Churchill.

[Novo]

Great update Brad!

Appreciate you taking the time to provide a concise overview of the concepts, objectives and implementation along with your personal observations of the developing dynamics which are quite encouraging.

[BradC]

Well, I'm sitting in a hotel in Pigeon Lake (quaint community by the way), and have just finished day one of a two day Land Use Framework session.

Today Dave Bartesko, one of the environmental ministers sat in all day, and a guy did a presentation on an Environmental Protection Act that will be put forth before the legislature in the next month or so. I don't want everyone to get worried about the presentation of the act. He estimates that it will take about 3 years for the act to pass as formal legislation and in that time much of the work that our group and others of the Land Use Framework groups will be able to shape it into something that should work.

In light of that, we covered much of the same material as last week - except in a different way, and from different perspectives. I'm guessing that tomorrow will be much of the same. Today a lot of the discussion centered around activities in certain areas taking place at the same time. (such as logging, seismic, and off road use, etc.) to minimize impact to multiple areas over a specified period of time.

I have also spoken with a number of group members on the side and they are very aware of the work that the organized off road clubs do to help with maintenance of the recreational areas. A couple of group members have even expressed displeasure at how the media portrays the recreational areas after long weekends, and asked where the media was when everyone was cleaning up. THAT'S GOOD NEWS!!

In any case, recreational areas are being acknowledged and accounted for in the overall management plan, and at this level, that's all I can ask.

One thing did come up though, and it's certainly something to chew on:

Many people here and in other off road forums have suggested the imposition of a user fee. It was suggested today that in order for people to use off road vehicles, they take a certification course and get an "off road license" to do so - just as has been implemented for the use of personal water craft such as seadoos, etc. People would then have to produce the "permit" or face seizure of their vehicle. It was also suggested that the revenue generated from the permit process could be used for trail maintenance, and so forth.

I think it's a GREAT idea. It's common knowledge among most people here that it's lack of information that is destroying our recreational areas, and this would ensure everyone is at the very least educated with regard to the ramifications of their actions while off roading. Essentially the licensing process takes care of three issues:
1. Education of safe and responsible use, and why responsible use is so important.
2. Revenue generation for rec area maintenance
3. A way to police the areas.

I would be interested in opinions with regard to this approach.

Brad.

[Spinalguy]

One thing did come up though, and it's certainly something to chew on:

Many people here and in other off road forums have suggested the imposition of a user fee. It was suggested today that in order for people to use off road vehicles, they take a certification course and get an "off road license" to do so - just as has been implemented for the use of personal water craft such as seadoos, etc. People would then have to produce the "permit" or face seizure of their vehicle. It was also suggested that the revenue generated from the permit process could be used for trail maintenance, and so forth.

I think it's a GREAT idea. It's common knowledge among most people here that it's lack of information that is destroying our recreational areas, and this would ensure everyone is at the very least educated with regard to the ramifications of their actions while off roading. Essentially the licensing process takes care of three issues:
1. Education of safe and responsible use, and why responsible use is so important.
2. Revenue generation for rec area maintenance
3. A way to police the areas.

I would be interested in opinions with regard to this approach.

Brad.

The 4x4 community has wanted this 'forever'. The key to all of this is ENFORCEMENT. Without that key aspect, we are doomed.
Ironically 30 fires were discovered by SRD last weekend during a fire ban. NOT one fine was given. This is unacceptable. It mirrors SRD watching the Willow Creek crapshow and doing NOTHING. Without ENFORCEMENT...

Keep up the good work Brad. Thanks!

[thumper-darryl]

User fees has been on the table since about 1990, when the ASA brought it foreword. It has been brought foreword a bunch of times since then, only to be shot down. The only hope for this one is through Rec Corridors. last winter it was discussed at length, and the legal issues were delt with. The stumbling block is political will. Look at what happened when Gov put a minor user fee on cross country sking in K-country. WW3 with the CHEAP users. A user fee must be across the board, meaning that they can not force user fees on one user group and not an other. So the equestrian users for example have been VERY opposed to user fees. We have seen that Morton is fairly strong in his positions, so maby he will push for this one. It has been discussed with him.

[BradC]

I'm on a lunch break right now, and want to clarify that what I'm proposing is NOT a user-fee system per se', but rather a "licensing" system with legislation backing it. Licensing means that a person MUST take a course - whether it be written or practical, and must be licensed to operate an off road vehicle.

The primary focus here is education and regulation. Paying a toll, so to speak at the gate of a recreation area does NOTHING to educate the user as to the impact their activity is going to have, and in some cases may (incorrectly) lead them to assume their user fee "entitles" them to certain liberties outside the scope of responsible use.

Just as with the pleasurecraft licensing process, there should be some sort of exam people need to study for. THIS is where the education comes in.

Thoughts?

[thumper-darryl]

Where Rec corridors is going with this is primarily a fee, just like a park fee, that provides $$ for education, and enforcement. Does not single out any user group, and provides a sizable amount of $$ for education programs. We are also looking at $$ from registrations comming back to a trail fund, but the amount from this is not enough to provide $$. needed.

[DIRTTV]

Thanks for keeping us informed. I am all for the education for the area. But I have one small problem. Who decides who is a teacher and who is a student?

Could you teach my wife(national champion)? my Father in law(national champion)? me(dumb A$$)? could anyone in a goverment position?

When riding in the forestry in large groups. When you come up on oposing traffic the lead rider holds up a finger count of how many people are behind them and the next behind him and so on.

Everytime I practice this it gets mistaken for the peace sign or some head nod. Who decides what and how?

Would the goverment ask the user groups how to teach????

Once again many questions.

Please keep us informed. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

[DIRTTV]

30 fires were discovered by SRD last weekend during a fire ban. NOT one fine was given. This is unacceptable.


What would happen if there were video footage of this. Could someone take legal action against SRD. Bob Bolton called it an "article (something)" like article 13 or something. Would the public benefit from this????


just a thought?

[BradC]

Hi Doug;

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).

With regard to more experienced off road users, I believe the exercise would be strictly academic for them. However I would like to think that as experience off road users, they/you/I would be the first to get the certification and openly support/promote it.

While the initial primary purpose would be education, the certification could be very basic, and may simply mean reading a booklet and taking a simple written test at a registry office. Pass the test and pay your fee and that's it - you get your card. This is no different than getting your learner's permit to drive.

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.

As the Land Advocacy dude for RMDRA, would it be possible for you to put this out to the group in the way of a survey? If it's supported, then I would be happy to draft a proposal and supporting quorum from our club for submission to the SRD.

Let me know.

Brad.