Kananaskis Logging: Planned West Bragg Creek & Moose Mountain Clearcut

[cral12]

(have posted in AB Poli thread, but quickly buried)

If you walk, hike, bike, ride horses, Nordic ski, drive through, bring friends/family, care about local businesses (from Bragg Creek through to bike and outdoor stores in yyc and area), pick mushrooms, snowshoe then this should be of interest.

The GROW Kananaskis website is best resource on how to help:
https://growkananaskis.com/#how-to-help
- petition
- template letter to email politicians
- spread the word

The Issue:
"We are not opposed to logging.
Alberta has 22.5 Million hectares of
harvestable forest.

West Fraser Timber Company (Formerly SLS) hold FMAs (the right to log) on 475,000 hectares from Waterton to Sundre.

The planned clear cut is 738 hectares in 2026, 362 hectares in West Bragg Creek and 376 hectares of Moose Mountain’s networks. 738 hectares is 0.15% of West Fraser Timber Company’s FMAs, or what they could be logging..

This clear cut will remove the majority of remaining older growth in the West Bragg and Moose Mountain area and will have an irreversible effect on the experience of outdoor recreation in the area."

A recent Twitter thread by @GROWkananaskis
To each & every one of the 620 registered and likely 750+ attendees at the Bragg Creek/Moose Mtn logging Open House, THANK-YOU! It wasn’t a fun event but it was a critical one.

A quick reminder to email feedback to
COS-WoodsNews@westfraser.com

Further recommendations:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...811421552.html

[I'm sure there will be the: "but we need houses" and "we can't have wildfires if we mow down the trees" type posts -- If you're for cutting down the forests in these particular areas, at the very least back up your arguments for...]

[cral12]

Was interesting to find this thread in CP from back in the day (the yr I moved to yyc actually)
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...ght=kananaskis

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Moose mountain is a beautiful area. Great for horseback treks and family-friendly hiking. Would be a shame to alter the face of the landscape there.

Don't know why they can't clear somewhere more remote (which is also terrible but at least won't be front and center where people go to experience nature).

[Locke]

When are we paving it and putting up a Parking Lot?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Moose mountain is a beautiful area. Great for horseback treks and family-friendly hiking. Would be a shame to alter the face of the landscape there.

Don't know why they can't clear somewhere more remote (which is also terrible but at least won't be front and center where people go to experience nature).

I dunno probably because then it’s just front and center for the animals.

[Cycling76er]

So, if it spoils your view from way off in the distance, it's ok to ban development. However, if it's an actively used area full of outdoor recreational opportunities, it's fair game. Cut all those ####ing trees down.

Logic.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Locke

When are we paving it and putting up a Parking Lot?

The already did. The West Bragg parking lot is basically like Disneyland now.

[KelVarnsen]

Less trees for Trudeau to burn down

[Leondros]

Paging Sliver. Interested to hear the balance between development and conservation.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The already did. The West Bragg parking lot is basically like Disneyland now.

People like Disneyland and people like ample parking. Pave more for more parking!

[moncton golden flames]

For the record, I am opposed to any clear cut logging, regardless of location. There are much better ways to manage forest resources.

But when part of the argument against is "we are not opposed to logging, but not here", it sounds very 'not in my back yard'. I only say this because I work in the residential development industry and we hear this all the time from opposing points of view; "I'm not opposed to affordable housing, but I support it elsewhere" or "I'm not opposed to increased density, just not next door, it should be somewhere else". See the current re-zoning discussions for recent examples.

I am not saying this to start a flame war, but in my experience in my field, this approach doesn't get very far for sympathy from the people making the decisions. The language is difficult to digest and comes across as "may way or else".

Instead, perhaps you could support alternative strategies to harvesting the resources needed, rather than a clear cut method. If you're not opposed to logging, maybe you would support select harvesting or some other more sensitive forest management?

If you want your voice to be heard, trying to work with the opposition tends to work better than simply opposing them.

Just my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.

[Looch City]

Trees are GREEN. You know what else is GREEN?

Facisct environmentalists! Get rid of all GREEN.

[habernac]

Mowing down the trees in a massively used recreation area is just stupid. The UCP clowns claim they want more tourism here, people come from out of town to ride here. Put your money where your mouth is.

[puffnstuff]

The fact this area is right next to a highway is one reason they want to log this area, its cheaper for them to get the logs out.

[gallione11]

Two of the biggest $#*)posters on the site are here of course. Really don't understand the fun of that.



If those are your opponents, pretty easy to see the correct side here

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

For the record, I am opposed to any clear cut logging, regardless of location. There are much better ways to manage forest resources.

But when part of the argument against is "we are not opposed to logging, but not here", it sounds very 'not in my back yard'. I only say this because I work in the residential development industry and we hear this all the time from opposing points of view; "I'm not opposed to affordable housing, but I support it elsewhere" or "I'm not opposed to increased density, just not next door, it should be somewhere else". See the current re-zoning discussions for recent examples.

I am not saying this to start a flame war, but in my experience in my field, this approach doesn't get very far for sympathy from the people making the decisions. The language is difficult to digest and comes across as "may way or else".

Instead, perhaps you could support alternative strategies to harvesting the resources needed, rather than a clear cut method. If you're not opposed to logging, maybe you would support select harvesting or some other more sensitive forest management?

If you want your voice to be heard, trying to work with the opposition tends to work better than simply opposing them.

Just my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.

Part of the issue is the trees that they are going to be harvesting. There is a 70 year growth span, if Fraser replants with the same trees they take. It's also a denser wood, so more valuable. Not the kind of wood that you see in builds around this area, but maybe in the acreage type lots, or shipped to the States, were Fraser is based.

This was the worry when SLS sold to Fraser. Local benefit goes way down. As the OP noted, they have most of the west side of Alberta as their playground, but they chose Bragg Creek for easy access and wood quality. They simply don't care about anything but the bottom line, similar to a Canadian company clearing land in Brazil. It's just too far away to ever really effect them.

They could stretch the area in pace with fire breaks, but the logistics and transportation costs go up, so why should they, when the UCP suger coated this land for them as part of a deal just before Kenney left.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

For the record, I am opposed to any clear cut logging, regardless of location. There are much better ways to manage forest resources.

But when part of the argument against is "we are not opposed to logging, but not here", it sounds very 'not in my back yard'. I only say this because I work in the residential development industry and we hear this all the time from opposing points of view; "I'm not opposed to affordable housing, but I support it elsewhere" or "I'm not opposed to increased density, just not next door, it should be somewhere else". See the current re-zoning discussions for recent examples.

I am not saying this to start a flame war, but in my experience in my field, this approach doesn't get very far for sympathy from the people making the decisions. The language is difficult to digest and comes across as "may way or else".

Instead, perhaps you could support alternative strategies to harvesting the resources needed, rather than a clear cut method. If you're not opposed to logging, maybe you would support select harvesting or some other more sensitive forest management?

If you want your voice to be heard, trying to work with the opposition tends to work better than simply opposing them.

Just my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.

So, here's the map.





All the blue, black and green lines are trails. Why not here? Well, it's the main recreation area where all the trails are! Do you have any idea how much work and money it takes to make and maintain trails? You can't just take all of this recreation and move it elsewhere. So then you have to wonder what our priorities are. Why here, and not somewhere else? Why destroy something so many actively use? Money? Ya, ####ing great.

The area is also the headwaters of a river that leads to the Elbow into Calgary. Clear cutting vastly reduces the ability of the land to absorb and slow storm waters. So by logging here in particular, they put Calgary at greater risk, and potentially millions or billions in costs from damages. Would it all be attributable to this cut? No, but every bit contributes, and on one hand we spend hundreds of millions to build dry dams, and on the other we make it far more likely to be needed. Is the value of this timber that great? More importantly, do WE see enough of that benefit to override this risk and costs? I'm gonna guess, no, of ####ing course not.

It's easy enough to say this is all nimbyism, but when you actually look at the issues, you'd have to be a fool to not step back and wonder WTF is in it for Albertans and what the net benefit actually is, and who gets it. If it was true nimbyism, they would have this kind of objection for every area they log. But they don't, which should be an indication that people protesting are reasonable, and they might just maybe have a point about this one.

[fotze2]

There are some monster gas wells that Shell drilled and still producing at Moose Mountain, its nuts because you would never know they are there. Super nice area, surely there are better places to target no one gives an F about.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

For the record, I am opposed to any clear cut logging, regardless of location. There are much better ways to manage forest resources.

But when part of the argument against is "we are not opposed to logging, but not here", it sounds very 'not in my back yard'. I only say this because I work in the residential development industry and we hear this all the time from opposing points of view; "I'm not opposed to affordable housing, but I support it elsewhere" or "I'm not opposed to increased density, just not next door, it should be somewhere else". See the current re-zoning discussions for recent examples.

I am not saying this to start a flame war, but in my experience in my field, this approach doesn't get very far for sympathy from the people making the decisions. The language is difficult to digest and comes across as "may way or else".

Instead, perhaps you could support alternative strategies to harvesting the resources needed, rather than a clear cut method. If you're not opposed to logging, maybe you would support select harvesting or some other more sensitive forest management?

If you want your voice to be heard, trying to work with the opposition tends to work better than simply opposing them.

Just my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.

Sounds like a job for CP's own forest ranger accountant!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Sounds like a job for CP's own forest ranger accountant!

I gots this!