Effects of Land uses in the Ghost FLUZ - Recent Study

[Hendrix13]

Feb 2011

http://www.ghostwatershed.ca/GWAS/Resea ... 1%29_1.pdf

[Spinalguy]

Wow.

That study is so BIASED against motorized recreation, not even the mighty RMDRA trailblazer is going to help us.
The pics they use for Random camping, quadding and 4x4ing do us no favors. It is so obviously slanted against the OHV community it makes me ill.
pages of interest: page 38, page 48, page 54, page 59, page 62, page 63, page 64,

Of course page 25 states that the data collected is poor on narrow trails but it doesn't stop the biased study from concluding that OHV activity leaves the largest footprint of doom and gloom for the future on page 30

i like page 15, so flattering for quads and 4x4's

Well at least every bike pic was of a bike that looked more set up for dualsporting.

This SIMULATED model is the final nail in our coffin.
Can someone else comment and make me feel better? Am i missing something and the impact of this study will be favorable to us?

i see the bottom line as NO more new trails (or reopening of old trails) and that OHV activity is the worst activity that can occur and will have the greatest negative impact on our future.

Anyone see this different?
Please tell me i am missing something, like a brain for reading comprehension.

[Hendrix13]

First of all...it needs to be understood that "ANYONE" can hire a consultant to do a study. If we raise (through Grants) the $30K that the GWAS did we could do our own study in this area. Truth of the matter is, this study will be presented to all the environmental groups in the area. As OHV proponents, we don't have any data to contradict these conclusions. The government is not bound in anyway to the results of this study and I don't know of any immediate action or changes that will result from this. This wasn't a study sanctioned by SRD or the Alberta Government (although that is coming soon)

If you want to question how this study was conducted...feel free to call the ALCES consultant firm in Calgary and let them know this isn't going un-noticed.
http://www.alces.ca/

I don't have access to the raw data collected to come up with these conclusions, so it's hard to argue anything.

From what I can tell...it looks like their model suggests there is currently 5km/km2 of linear disturbances in the Ghost. The Ghost is 1,500 km2 so they're suggesting there is almost 7,500km of "Linear Disturbances" in the ghost (this includes seismic lines,cutlines, etc). Of that they're suggesting 2,000Km is OHV trails that exists today. And that this is by far the largest active component in the Ghost when compared to Roads etc. SRD claims there is 627 KM of designated trails in the Ghost. So the conclusion is that there is 1,373 KMs of "illegal" OHV trail in the ghost.

Does that sound right to you? (Think about how long just a 50km trail is..I think they've exaggerated this number which gives them the support to draw all these other conclusions)

So of course this leads to the conclusion that these trails must the causing the majority of the sediment runoff, second only to transportation (roads). (Without any actual data to support this)

This also draws the conclusion that these trails must be killing bears and fish too. ( How many bears have you killed on your bike? Again, no data to support this )

So the conclusions are:
- "..OHV use and Non-motorized uses are non-compatible. Apply a 75meter non-motorized recreationalist avoidance buffer to linear features.." (Huh?? So these linear disturbances are only suitable for horses then..how's that going to reduce erosion and save the bears?)

- "..No new roads or trails unless an equal amount or greater are reclaimed .." (Sounds good to me. I'd gladly trade the 1,375km of this imaginary trail for a real trail system)

- "..Careful thought should be given to what landscapes types are appropriate for OHRV use..." (Well since SRD has declared the area a Multi-USE OHV area and that's not going to change anytime soon...I think that's already been done.)

I think the reality is that these environmental groups have gotten into the habit of creating something out of nothing because no one ever questions their studies.

It's our job to show them that they're wrong. It's our job to call them on these unfounded conclusions. Make them prove it.

It's our job to show them that we're committed to creating sustainable trails that won't negatively impact the environment. We need to start creating our own data and our own studies, and show that sustainable OHV trails are the real future of the Ghost!!

We have all the tools, we just need more passionate people to get involved

[Dobi]

It's our job to show them that they're wrong. It's our job to call them on these unfounded conclusions. Make them prove it.

It's our job to show them that we're committed to creating sustainable trails that won't negatively impact the environment. We need to start creating our own data and our own studies, and show that sustainable OHV trails are the real future of the Ghost!!

We have all the tools, we just need more passionate people to get involved

Well said Mr Hendrix. We do need to start putting out our own data, and getting our own powerpoint presentations in front of greenies etc.

The head of the company that did that study is Dr Stelfox. He has been using his model to predict the end of the world as we know it for the last 10 or so years. First it was urban sprawl, then it was oil and gas, then it was forestry, now it looks like someone has commisioned him to come up with a good reason to declare OHV's as weapons of mass destruction......

[AJRJ]

The biggest problem with this report is that the people that commissioned it will use it to convince others. Expect to see this referenced on the evening news come the third week of May. For the vast majority of Calgarians the only time they visit the Ghost or other areas, is when news crews are sensationalizing the damage. People will enjoy the feeling of being "well informed" by a one sided report like this.

I totally agree that we need to have our own report. The area of influence for these linear disturbances is gross overestimation at best. Maybe OHV fees could help pay for that study?

Weren't we going to do some volunteering out in the Ghost, so people could see we're all not a bunch of drunks? At least in public anyways...

[Hendrix13]

Here's the same study directly from ALCES..there's additional sildes at the end.

http://www.alces.ca/reports/download/10 ... b2011).pdf

[Spinalguy]

Here's the same study directly from ALCES..there's additional sildes at the end.

http://www.alces.ca/reports/download/10 ... b2011).pdf

pg 105 sums it all up

[AJRJ]

Here's the same study directly from ALCES..there's additional sildes at the end.

http://www.alces.ca/reports/download/10 ... b2011).pdf

pg 105 sums it all up

A pair of bookends for the pack on that horse!

[Dakota_c69]

Here's the same study directly from ALCES..there's additional sildes at the end.

http://www.alces.ca/reports/download/10 ... b2011).pdf

pg 105 sums it all up

Link doesn't work for me from work...

Glenn.

[Hendrix13]

I noticed the website has gotten slow...Wonder why

[Dobi]

go to the website itself and download directly from the presenatations page.

[Hendrix13]

go to the website itself and download directly from the presenatations page.

For some reason that works better..

Start here http://www.alces.ca/reports and search for Ghost.

[markvfr]

I especially like page 54:
"OHRV use and non-motorized recreation are viewed as non-compatible" - I think he meant to say "horses are viewed as non-compatible with any other recreation".
"Applied 75m non-motorized recreationalist avoidance buffer to linear features in study area". - Really? Really?

These guys should get off their a$$ and check out the thousands of km of shared use trail systems in the US and see the "non-compatibility" for themselves.

Amazing what "public data" people can compile into a presentation and call it a study/business. Why don't we come up with a grad study grant and suggest a master thesis to a surficial geology/biology undergrad to do a PROPER scientific study of recreation, logging, horse recreation affects on Waiparous.

[cedric]

Amazing what "public data" people can compile into a presentation and call it a study/business. Why don't we come up with a grad study grant and suggest a master thesis to a surficial geology/biology undergrad to do a PROPER scientific study of recreation, logging, horse recreation affects on Waiparous.

Good idea Mark. Can we afford a grad student? Last I was in school that was probably about $20k/year, dog knows what it costs now, cause that was a while ago.

[markvfr]

Amazing what "public data" people can compile into a presentation and call it a study/business. Why don't we come up with a grad study grant and suggest a master thesis to a surficial geology/biology undergrad to do a PROPER scientific study of recreation, logging, horse recreation affects on Waiparous.

Good idea Mark. Can we afford a grad student? Last I was in school that was probably about $20k/year, dog knows what it costs now, cause that was a while ago.

The cost usually depends on how intense fund wise the thesis is, but yeah, $20k/yr would probably be in the ball park. We don't have to sponsor the whole study, and besides it would lose credibility in the community if we "pay" for the whole thesis. Of course, a lot of the times it has no effect on the outcome but perceptions are perceptions. Who knows, maybe some similar studies have already been done, I don't know. I can have a poke at the Galagher Library (I think I still have a card that works... ) and see if there are any related surficial geology studies.

I'm just talking out loud since it just makes me laugh how ridiculous that powerpoint is. The ALCES team has some serious academic credentials, so it surprises me for them to put out such a mickey mouse, onesided and generalized "model/study".

Ok, I'm done.