Wildsight not interested in what is fair…

[snowvalley]

Wildsight proves once and for all that they are not interested in what is fair or balanced. Of course, we all knew they would continue to demand a national park. Here is what we can draw from their predictability:

• Wildsight does not believe in any form of economic development, however conservatively done. Tembec is a certified forest company that in the Flathead uses the most careful logging methods in North America. Nonetheless, if they had their way, all these family-supporting jobs would disappear.

• Wildsight does not believe in hunting as an effective tool to control healthy populations. Hunters and guide outfitters should be forever wary of trusting this group because they are more than happy to create a federal park and end forever the hunting that has occured in the Valley for over a century.

•Wildsight and their allies will continue to oppose any economic development in the Elk Valley, including any new pits proposed by Teck Coal. I predict a very rough ride for Teck in the next few years. Those who understand how the coal mines support our communities will need to step up our public support of mining in the Elk Valley.

•Wildsight will bitterly oppose coal bed gas exploration by BP in the Elk Valley. Those who see this activity as a clean, safe industry and understand that our rules for cbg in BC are the strictest in North America, will need to be willing to say so publicly. Get the facts on cbg.

[cs86]

I agree. And Wildsight also pays people such as Casey Brennan – many people that I have spoken to think he is just an activist/volunteer, when he is actually a paid activist. Just a bit of info.

[imported_ryland]

My name is Ryland Nelson and I work with Casey Brennan for Wildsight as well.

The work that I do for wildsight is meant to try to find a fair and balanced approach to development. One that finds a space for nature amongst our industrial uses of the region. See my responses to your post below:

world1st wrote :
> Wildsight proves once and for all that they are not interested in what is
> fair or balanced. Of course, we all knew they would continue to demand a
> national park. Here is what we can draw from their predictability:

Wildsight will continue to support moving forward with the feasibility study that is currently proposed by Parks Canada to complete Waterton National Park by adding the southeastern third of BC’s Flathead to the protected complex.
>
> • Wildsight does not believe in any form of economic development, however
> conservatively done. Tembec is a certified forest company that in the
> Flathead uses the most careful logging methods in North America.
> Nonetheless, if they had their way, all these family-supporting jobs would
> disappear.

Wildsight worked with Tembec to help them gain their Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification that opened up new markets for their paper products. This may be one of the reasons that they survived and other timber companies did not. If a national park were to be established in the Flathead only 1/3rd of the valley would be off limits to logging. The remaining 2/3rds would remain open to logging.

>
> • Wildsight does not believe in hunting as an effective tool to control
> healthy populations. Hunters and guide outfitters should be forever wary of
> trusting this group because they are more than happy to create a federal
> park and end forever the hunting that has occured in the Valley for over a
> century.

Responsible sportsmen recognize that core protected areas are required to sustain healthy populations for better hunting outside its boundaries. Currently there is less than 5 acres of wildlife sanctuaries in all of Southeastern BC. The closest being Waterton-Glacier National Park to the South and Kootenay and Glacier National Parks to the north.

British Columbia should do its part in contributing to the core protected area of Waterton-Glacier and fill in the missing piece. If this is not done the core protected area is incomplete. Just look at a map to see the big chunk missing out of it where BC protrudes into it.

>
> •Wildsight and their allies will continue to oppose any economic
> development in the Elk Valley, including any new pits proposed by Teck
> Coal. I predict a very rough ride for Teck in the next few years. Those who
> understand how the coal mines support our communities will need to step up
> our public support of mining in the Elk Valley.

Wildsight is not against mining. We recognize that mining is the backbone of the regional economy, providing important benefits to Elk Valley communities. Wildsight does, however, have concerns about the impacts that existing operations are having on water quality in the valley, and about the impacts new mines and coalbed methane developments will add to an already-stressed ecosystem.

Current environmental conditions need to be assessed comprehensively, at the landscape level. And cumulative effects of existing projects should be analyzed so that their true impacts can be evaluated—before any new mines or coalbed methane projects proceed.

>
> •Wildsight will bitterly oppose coal bed gas exploration by BP in the Elk
> Valley. Those who see this activity as a clean, safe industry and
> understand that our rules for cbg in BC are the strictest in North America,
> will need to be willing to say so publicly. Get the facts on cbg.

check out this review of BC’s so called world class CBM regulations. http://dogwoodinitiative.org/publicatio … h-columbia

[young_local]

"Responsible sportsmen recognize that core protected areas are required to sustain healthy populations for better hunting outside its boundaries. Currently there is less than 5 acres of wildlife sanctuaries in all of Southeastern BC. The closest being Waterton-Glacier National Park to the South and Kootenay and Glacier National Parks to the north.

British Columbia should do its part in contributing to the core protected area of Waterton-Glacier and fill in the missing piece. If this is not done the core protected area is incomplete. Just look at a map to see the big chunk missing out of it where BC protrudes into it."

Ryland-
I respect what you guys have done and the hard work put into everything, but there’s one place where Wildsight always misses the mark. It’s when it comes down to addressing the many locals who depend on the Flathead as part of their livelihoods, be it with hunting or fishing, and the other locals that use the Flathead to recreate in frequently. What you guys always say is that we should do our part to protect the wildlife, but never admit that the wildlife in the flathead is not in danger because of hunters/outfitters. We all agree that a mine would ruin what you and I both know as the best place to spend a weekend, so why not leave it at that and not take away the use of the Flathead from all of us?
The Fernie Rod and Gun club, GOABC, RMEF, and many others have a GREAT handle on the wildlife situation in the flathead. We are the ones out there constantly, and have eye-witness experience to the abundance of many animals in the flathead. Last year I saw more grizzly bears in the "park" area then ever before, so I don’t believe that we as outfitters and hunters are doing any harm by controlling the population of our wildlife. This part of BC has a great reputation for doing what is right, and what needs to be done to both control rising populations of species, and help rebuild declining populations (have a look at what the 4-spike regulation for mule-deer did, or the 6-spike bull elk rule) Take grizzly bears, before 2000 there was an outstanding decrease in the population of grizzlies in all of southern BC, so the government shut down all hunting of grizzly bears – didn’t help-. It wasn’t until there were better regulations on grizzly bear hunting that we finally were on the right track (Many thanks to the late Bob Fontana). This is because the guide/outfitters know how to properly control the population- a park would create problems because there just isn’t enough land to support all the grizzlies without proper control. I believe if there were to be a park, we would see a decline in grizzly bear population.

A quote from one of wildsight’s publications way back. "The Flathead is home to an astounding 16 species of carnivores, ranging from the mischievous pine marten to the towering grizzly bear. Six species of hoofed animals (ungulates), roam the spacious valley bottom and serrated mountain tops ‚Äì including elk, bighorn sheep, moose and mountain goat. The density of grizzly bears here is greater than anywhere else in the interior of North America."

Hunting has been going on in the flathead valley for a hundred years, and look at what we have? ^
Drop the park idea- we don’t need it. But keep up the good work with the rest of your conservation efforts.

[mikes]

Now that the Flathead has been protected from "big oil" we have to protect it from Wildsight and the Sierra Club… "big green" remember these extreme groups are funded almost completely from foreign countries that have already killed most of their large preditors and would love nothing more than to be able to come over here to view them. NO TO FLATHEAD PARK!!!! NO TO WILDSIGHT!!!! ESPECIALLY IN OUR SCHOOLS!!!!

[imported_ryland]

Its true. The wildlife is thriving in the flathead. Alot of this has to due with the huge protected area of Waterton-Glacier in Alberta and Montana that is feeding the areas outside of it. Thats why I believe that it is a good idea to complete the complex so that it can continue to function to its highest potential.

Doug, You have pointed out the mcdougall wildlife sanctuary before. Yes it is there, but it is tiny. not sure of its exact size, but its not much more than 5 acres. It is so small it hardly even shows up on maps. To say that this tiny sanctuary is sufficient for all of southeastern british columbia is a joke.

you say that "the missing piece" is designated as a provincial wilderness area. This is not true. Current motorized restrictions are proposed to be amended to open numerous side roads and tembec is planning to build new roads for new logging operations this summer. And the mining ban, while great, could easily be changed at any moment, just as was done to the previously established southern rockies wildlife management area. (yes, there is akamina kishinena provincial park. its shaped like a horse shoe and runs along the mountaintops and does not extend into valley bottoms where logging has occurred and motorized access is loosely controlled.)

Wouldn’t it be nice to have just one little chunk in our corner of british columbia permanently protected? Safe from the government of the days land use decisions. A place for quiet recreation set aside forever?

[cs86]

Well said Mikes…

[young_local]

"A place for quiet recreation set aside forever"

Quiet recreation? Glacier National Park has just under 2 MILLION visitors annually. How is that a QUIET place for recreation? Come on, you know that if a park in our part of the Flathead is approved then it opens the door to major developement in that area. Take a look at photos of glacier BEFORE the park, and tell me that it doesn’t look better as a natural, beautiful place without a massive amount of visitors each year. So what I want from Wildsight, is for them to guarantee that by fighting for a park in the proposed part of the flathead, there WILL NOT be the development of paved roads, rest stops every 2 km, sight-seeing buildings built at the most beautiful viewpoints around, permanent bathroom facilities, etc, etc, etc…. If you can guarantee this, then you would have MUCH more of the local support.

Ryland- what is better for the wildlife of the Flathead:
a) the outfitters that have been successfully managing the land for a hundred years.
b) permanent structures built along the way and connected to glacier/waterton, exposing it to over a million visitors each year. (and obviously having effects on the wildlife) On my "trip to the sun" last year, I only saw two mountain goats- they were licking the salt off of my tires. WOW! natural, beautiful… no- it was actually quite upsetting.. if that development hadn’t been there, we could have drove up an old dirt road, and hiked the rest of the way- to see the goats in their natural habitat.

I know you enjoy skiing early season pow in Harvey Pass, so let me ask you this.. if the park was proposed to cover that area, you’d be pretty upset right? Knowing that most likely you’ll never be able to ski those big lines again, and that if there is skiing allowed, you’d have to share it with a hundred times more tourists than the odd Albertan that you see now.
So now take that situation, and think about you skiing those early season lines as a career, and every line you ski puts a meal on the table for your wife and children. But wait, now there’s a park there, and you can’t ski it. No food on the table, so you might have to move out of Fernie and go somewhere to find a job to support your family.

Sounds pretty bad, hey? Now make that a reality for the guides/outfitters that work in the part of the proposed park area.

[imported_ryland]

There has been alot of untruths spread about the proposed park in the Flathead. The facts are:

1. It is only proposed for ONE THIRD of the valley. The part farthest away from Fernie.

2. The proposed waterton park completion is proposed to be a wilderness area. Which means no development outside of tent sites and outhouses.

3. While guide outfitters would be affected they would be compensated and would be allowed long transitions for their territory. I believe the outfitters around the recent Nahanni park expansion were compensated and given 20 years to transition to a new territory.

Not a common mistruth. But just for clarification. You can ski anywhere you want in a National Park. And harvey pass is not in the proposed park area. Far outside it in fact.

[young_local]

I know that the Harvey Pass is not in the proposed park, that’s why I ask you to think of it as being in, and then see what I’m saying… I know where the park is, like you said, the furthest 1/3rd from Fernie.. there are still outfitters in that area.

The government was supposed to compensate all the fishing guides for their terrible job at the Fish Management Plan.. that money is yet to be seen, and the honest guide/outfitters are still paying for the plan that is yet to be put in place.

[admin]

Ryland Nelson is a paid spokesperson for the US enviromental groups that fund Wildsight and he clearly voices their perspectives.

Don’t expect him to protect the interest of locals.

It is obvious in the above thread that he is not listening, rather he voices the opinions of Harvey Locke and other New York lawyers who have worked for decades to create the Flathead Park.

[imported_ryland]

I work very closely and have great respect for Harvey Locke. Harvey is from Calgary and Banff. Not New York. –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Locke

[young_local]

I wonder if it is because I am not slandering you or your affiliated oranizations, but why do my posts never seem to get a legitimate response? Possibly because you may think I actually have a point?

[mikes]

Its seems like Wildsights whole argument for a Flathead park was to protect it from mining. Be it mining for coal or mining from methane. Now that the B.C. government bravely banned minning in the Flathead whats their argument for a park? The one that seems to be mentioned by them lately is, if you look at a map, the Flathead looks like the missing piece from two other parks. It that seriously their argument for a park. Its the missing link? Thats the thing about being a paid protestor, if there’s nothing to protest, you don’t get paid. I would suggest they would be singing a different tune if I was trying to turn all of Fernie Mountain, Ridgemont, and Morrisey ridge into a National Park. No biking, no bike trails. They’d be crying me a river.

NO TO THE FLATHEAD PARK!
NO TO WILDSIGHT!

[admin]

Young_local, you are absolutely correct. Your points are accurate and Harvey’s local mouthpiece (Ryland) doesn’t have an answer.

And I stand corrected, Harvey lives in Bolder Colorado with the other paid activists.

young_local wrote :
> I wonder if it is because I am not slandering you or your affiliated
> oranizations, but why do my posts never seem to get a legitimate response?
> Possibly because you may think I actually have a point?

[fernielocal101]

Everyone has a great point! It’s nice to see so much discussion on the topic! Good on all yall

My view is to boot oil and gas, stop further coal in “that area” and business as usual for the rest. I sure hope if all those fancy fifth wheel red plates start lining the back roads the porcupines get their tires at night….

[cs86]

I agree mikes…again.

[Author]

Posts